The Scientific Definition of Life

[Rick Horton]

And, so we use dictionaries to clarify. If the person arguing uses a word wrong, we call them out on it, not let them use it. That's debating properly. Do you do a lot of live debating? Have you been in a debate club, or on a debate team that does this in front of other people? Because what happens is if you ask people to define words you'll lose credibility straight off. You should have a dictionary with you for all debates. When somebody argues something and uses a word wrong that their argument hinges on you believing the word means something, it's usually to get you to accept a premise differently than what the argument should demand. That's when you say, "says here" that the word you are using means "this". THEN the conversation can go forward clearly, and the person who was using the word wrong has to explain his deception, or look for a new term to use. I've been on several debate teams and there "are" things you don't do. One, is to use words in your own way instead of in the way they are defined. If you cant find a word in the dictionary that reflects what you are trying to say then you have to use an assembly of other words to paint your picture, OR propose a "new" term. Proposing a new term can be done, but it's not that productive either unless you can sell that term widely enough, fast enough, to become part of common lexicon, at least in the area of your expertise, otherwise you spend more time explaining the word than you would if you just used sentences to describe your point in the first place. And it's a frustrating game outside of real debating because so many people try and make words mean what "they" want them to mean. But in real, live debates, with an audience, HOMIES WILL NOT PLAY THAT.  

[mythness]

 

 

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.

 

You must have overlooked this part of my post...

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

 

...which is pretty much what you just did. Oh, and did you forget...

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

THIS is what I mean by shape:

(embedded image)

It's fundamental. It's a "show, don't tell" understanding.

Back to the subjective senses. I could be an (annoying) automated bot (no eyes) for all you know.

 

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.

 

Great, another term, this time "space" (or it could have been "gareft" for that matter. Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then.

 

So, how about that unambiguous definition for the term "space" (or "gareft")? 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.

[huttnedu]

 

Metric: "Discovering new phenomena is science  -- definitions can come and go, but the phenomena remain observable pieces of nature. "

 

No, explaining phenomena is science. A definition is not a phenomena. A definition is a limitation on the utility of a word to make it unambiguous. Only then can we determine whether or not the term is being used consistently."A pen falls to the ground". <- That is phenomena. "Falls" is a concept, Pen and ground are objects. We have to illustrate the objects and define the concepts before we can even begin understanding the phenomena.

 

Metric: "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."

 

A definition is not subject. A Scientific definition is OBJECTIVE insofar as it invokes no observers.

Sure, we refine our definitions if it can be demonstrated as contradictory. However, this is not what you have done.

If you cannot define a term then you have NO BUSINESS in using it. If you leave a word undefined then you have a meaningless term.

 

[huttnedu]

Mythness: "Back to the subjective senses. I could be an (annoying) automated bot (no eyes) for all you know."

 

A blind man can understand the difference between SOMETHING and NOTHING.  The visual aid is just that... an aid. YOU can visualize just as well as a blind man that the difference between something and nothing is that something has shape without any sensory input whatsoever.

 

Mythness: "Great, another term, this time "space" (or it could have been "gareft" for that matter. Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then."

 

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

 

Space = nothing. It's as simple as that.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Mythness: "Back to the subjective senses. I could be an (annoying) automated bot (no eyes) for all you know."

 

A blind man can understand the difference between SOMETHING and NOTHING.  The visual aid is just that... an aid. YOU can visualize just as well as a blind man that the difference between something and nothing is that something has shape without any sensory input whatsoever.

 

Mythness: "Great, another term, this time "space" (or it could have been "gareft" for that matter. Let me guess, any two year old can understand? Well, any two year old can understand the concept "truth". That takes care of the whole "truth" debate, then."

 

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

 

Space = nothing. It's as simple as that.

 

 

Not true. Space = The final frontier, lol

 

[mythness]

Space = nothing. It's as simple as that.

And truth = absolute. It's as simple as that.

 

Oh, what's this? You want me to define these terms, or else I have no business using them?

 

If you cannot define a term then you have NO BUSINESS in using it. If
you leave a word undefined then you have a meaningless term.

 

Well, then I must be fair and consistent, and ask you to do the same with "space" and "nothing".

 

What do the following have to do with "defining terms unambiguously
in such a way that it can be used without contradiction"?

A blind man can understand the difference between SOMETHING and NOTHING.
 The visual aid is just that... an aid. YOU can visualize just as well
as a blind man that the difference between something and nothing is that
something has shape without any sensory input whatsoever.

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is
because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I
know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without
even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

Now you're just borderline on special pleading.

[Metric]

 

 

Metric: "Discovering new phenomena is science  -- definitions can come and go, but the phenomena remain observable pieces of nature. "

 

No, explaining phenomena is science. A definition is not a phenomena. A definition is a limitation on the utility of a word to make it unambiguous. Only then can we determine whether or not the term is being used consistently.

"A pen falls to the ground". <- That is phenomena. "Falls" is a concept, Pen and ground are objects. We have to illustrate the objects and define the concepts before we can even begin understanding the phenomena.

 

Metric: "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."

 

A definition is not subject. A Scientific definition is OBJECTIVE insofar as it invokes no observers.

Sure, we refine our definitions if it can be demonstrated as contradictory. However, this is not what you have done.

If you cannot define a term then you have NO BUSINESS in using it. If you leave a word undefined then you have a meaningless term.

 

 

Once again, you are using an extremely non-standard definion of "science" that doesn't correspond to what scientists actually do.  I completely understand why you would like to co-opt the word for yourself, rather than bothering to use your own word.  The motives are rather obvious to everyone.

Incidentally, I agree that keeping consistent defintions is important -- however, the point is that it is arbitrary.  It is possible to describe the same phenomenon using two different sets of terminology.  Thus, the science (in the sense used by scientists) is not in the the terminology -- the terminology is just a tool (defined however you find convenient) for conveying the real and lasting thing -- the actual science.

[mythness]

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

 

And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so? You see! He is able to point to the container with the marble when asked to do so. And guess what? Someone else tested if he understood the concept of "false" by observing him consistently point to the empty container when asked to point to the container with the marble!

No need to go further than that, just like there's no need to go further with "shape", "space", and "nothing" after the simple statement of "object: that which has shape".

 

Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag...

Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality

Look, it's consistent too! You see, if a statement does not reflect reality, it is not truth. If a statement does reflect reality, it is truth. Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair! My definition for truth is consistent!

If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object. Consistent, as well!

 

What's this? Don't like the fact that I'm not further defining the terms "statement" and "reality"? I don't have to. Any two year old understands the concept of truth. Just ask him which glass container holds the marble. He conceptualizes "truth" and can make a distinction between "truth" and "not truth", just as with "object" and "not object". Oh, he's blind? Well, he's allowed to use his hands to feel inside the containers.

[huttnedu]

Hey guys, I really appreciate the responses and I will be back tomorrow to edit this post as a comprehensive response to all of your criticisms.These conversations are really the highlight of my life, to be quite honest with you. There's nothing I like more than a good debate about Science, so, thank you for your responses and I look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow.

[ribuck]

I also asked this question of a molecular biologist over at the Bitcointalk forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=147283.msg1565119#msg1565119

[huttnedu]

REGARDING SHAPE AND SPACE:

"Well, then I must be fair and consistent, and ask you to do the same with "space" and "nothing"."

 

Let me get something clear here. 

Every idea a human can have is a relation between at least 2 'somethings'. Objects are the bounty of the universe and our brains evolved to related them, i.e. to think. So, all thoughts are concepts. It is impossible to conceive of anything without relating it to something else, plain and simple. All terms in language are conceived as relations. 

 

So, the question we need to ask is: what is a 'something' i.e. an object?

Anything we conceive is distinct in that it has spatial separation. For if it didn't, we cannot relate it to anything else and cannot even imagine it. What would there be to distinguish without at least two things in relation? In fact, it is impossible to conceive of anything without this distinctiveness of separation. 

 

It is this separation from the inside to the immediate surroundings that we call shape. Without the spatial separation of shape, you cannot conceive of anything....not a single thought.

Remember, any thought that comes to your mind is necessarily a relation between at least 2 'somethings'. And this is objective because the human sensory system is not involved. It is pure conception....just as an artist born blind can conceive of shape and objects.

 

SO then linguistically, what does shape relate?

 

Shape necessarily relates two mediums: a medium inside to a medium outside of a border. From a purely syntactical perspective, both mediums are conceptual. We REQUIRE two things to relate in conceptualization. However, in reality, is the environment (outside) of an object a real medium (another object)? No! We have something in grammar called context where we discern the proper meanings of terms through context. And since space is nothing (mere separation, as I critically reasoned above) then this space-medium I made reference to is actually not an object.

 

Don't confuse syntax (grammar) with context (critically reasoned meaning). All of this stuff is explained in this paper:

 

[huttnedu]

 

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

 

And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so? You see! He is able to point to the container with the marble when asked to do so. And guess what? Someone else tested if he understood the concept of "false" by observing him consistently point to the empty container when asked to point to the container with the marble!

No need to go further than that, just like there's no need to go further with "shape", "space", and "nothing" after the simple statement of "object: that which has shape".

 

Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag...

Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality

Look, it's consistent too! You see, if a statement does not reflect reality, it is not truth. If a statement does reflect reality, it is truth. Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair! My definition for truth is consistent!

If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object. Consistent, as well!

 

What's this? Don't like the fact that I'm not further defining the terms "statement" and "reality"? I don't have to. Any two year old understands the concept of truth. Just ask him which glass container holds the marble. He conceptualizes "truth" and can make a distinction between "truth" and "not truth", just as with "object" and "not object". Oh, he's blind? Well, he's allowed to use his hands to feel inside the containers.

 

A statement cannot reflect reality (objects with location).  A mirror can reflect light, but your statements reflecting reality? No. Any congruence you believe your statements have wrt objects with location is YOUR OPINION.

You may think the baby is pointing at the marbles because he "conceptualizes truth" but I propose something different. I think the baby points to the marbles because you have positively reinforced the behavior by rote.

You see, TRUTH requires subjective verification via the limited sensory system.

Science is objective, meaning that we do not invoke subjective observers in our statements. Truth by definition requires a subjective observer's opinion. 

[huttnedu]

 

Once again, you are using an extremely non-standard definion of "science" that doesn't correspond to what scientists actually do.  I completely understand why you would like to co-opt the word for yourself, rather than bothering to use your own word.  The motives are rather obvious to everyone.

Incidentally, I agree that keeping consistent defintions is important -- however, the point is that it is arbitrary.  It is possible to describe the same phenomenon using two different sets of terminology.  Thus, the science (in the sense used by scientists) is not in the the terminology -- the terminology is just a tool (defined however you find convenient) for conveying the real and lasting thing -- the actual science.

 

Metric, while I do find it incredibly amusing to have my "motives" discerned so smugly, I'd rather stick to the actual topic.

Science is about explaining phenomena rationally, i.e. providing physical mechanisms to explain physical phenomena. 

You say:

I agree that keeping consistent defintions is important

And then you say,

 

 terminology is just a tool (defined however you find convenient)

Wait a sec.... Do we define them so that they can be used consistently or do we define them as whatever feels right (convenient) to us? Don't give us the run-around here.

[Rick Horton]

I'd like to cut through the red tape that's going on right now in this thread because my guess is that it's boring everybody who keeps checking the progress in it. 

My proposition for what constitutes life is probably somewhat similar to a prochoicers definition, lol....   Anything that can impose will, and knows that it is imposing will. This would make plants, not alive. So to make the argument about what constitutes life much simpler I would argue that it's not enough that something grows, moves against gravity, etc... but that it knowingly imposes itself through force in an environment. So my idea of what makes something alive is a lot different than the accepted idea. I argue that something without awareness of it's decisions is not alive, thus any being without a consciousness isn't alive. 

[ribuck]

... any being without a consciousness isn't alive.

Hmm. How do you know that I am conscious?

[Rick Horton]

 

... any being without a consciousness isn't alive.

Hmm. How do you know that I am conscious?

 

I don't really know you're conscious. I do however know that my interaction with you affects my consciousness. You are an irrefutable subject of my consciousness in that way. Your importance to my reality is subtle, yet existent, therefore you exist, if for no other reason than your affect on my existence. You "could" be a computer program test AI algorythm for all I know, but the difference it would make is zero. Your impact in my reality is still quite minute.

[ribuck]

I don't really know you're conscious ... you "could" be a computer program test AI algorythm for all I know

What I mean is, even if you meet me face-to-face you can't know whether I'm conscious or not. So how can consciousness be a useful test for life?

[fingolfin]

The reason I say a two year old can understand what SHAPE is, is because they can visualize it. A BLIND BABY could understand shape. I know of kids who can push shapes through corresponding holes without even looking! They VISUALIZE them.

Exactly. Shape is an objective criterion.

For thousands of years the philosophers failed to understand the difference between object and concept, and this is why we have ended up with the lunacy and surrealism they call "science" and "physics" today. Hume and Kant came fairly close, but no bacon. People on this forum, IMO huttnedu, haven't yet grasped the fundamentals, since it's more of a political forum than scientific (which is fair enough). Just as a heads up though as what you say might go over heads.

 

And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so? You see! He is able to point to the container with the marble when asked to do so. And guess what? Someone else tested if he understood the concept of "false" by observing him consistently point to the empty container when asked to point to the container with the marble!

 

There's nothing true or false about what you said. It's just a description. "A two-year-old points at a glass container... bla bla" << i.e. this. At best, what we have here is a fact, not a 'truth'. It happened, or didn't. A fact is a type of assumption. It is not an absolute truth... so help me god. We assume something is the case, in order to theorize about it.

 

No need to go further than that, just like there's no need to go further with "shape", "space", and "nothing" after the simple statement of "object: that which has shape".

 

Except you have no definition yet. Whereas huttnedu gave you a very specific, scientific definition — one which is unambiguous and rational, i.e. free from contradiction and subjectivities.

 

Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag...

Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality

 

Not vaguely objective I'm afraid. In fact, no one has a clue what you mean yet. That which reflects reality? How do you mean, like a mirror reflects light? Does truth "feel a bit like" reality? Or are you saying that the definition is a synonym for reality? It's too ambiguous. Some poetry "reflects reality", but in a metaphorical sense. To a priest, god and reality reflect each other. So according to YOUR definition, God is true for the priest.

 

Look, it's consistent too! You see, if a statement does not reflect reality, it is not truth. If a statement does reflect reality, it is truth. Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair! My definition for truth is consistent!

 

Definitely isn't...

 

If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object. Consistent

 

Correct!

 

What's this? Don't like the fact that I'm not further defining the terms "statement" and "reality"? I don't have to. Any two year old understands the concept of truth. Just ask him which glass container holds the marble. He conceptualizes "truth" and can make a distinction between "truth" and "not truth", just as with "object" and "not object". Oh, he's blind? Well, he's allowed to use his hands to feel inside the containers.

 

Liking and 'having to' has nothing to do with it. No one has a clue what truth means yet in your presentation. Is truth "a" child? Is truth just... anything? Is god true? Is "I like chips" true? Is blindness true? What are we even adding to a statement when we tag it with the conceptual label, "true"? Are we saying that true=exist?

You haven't come up with a definition of truth that doesn't resolve to
opinion. Don't worry, no philosopher ever has. I only learned this
several years after first posting on these boards. What happens around here generally speaking is that the following terms are all mixed up and/or used interchangeably (inc. by our lovely Stefan):

fact, truth, proof, consistent, objective, absolute, empirical

But these each have very specific contexts and definitions!

[Victor]

 

"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.

 

The capillary effect is not a squeeze. It's due to surface tension in water and electrostatic forces of the water molecules and cellulose. The plant is not doing anything other than being a plant, and water pulls itself up the branches.

I think you also ignored what I pointed about fungi and bacteria that do not move and don't defy gravity, but are still alive.

I think we had discussed in the past about these conceptualization exercises: about objects, forces, matter and energy. So, when you say only objects can perform actions, well, that's not accurate. Energy has effects on matter, and energy is not objects.

I have problems following your way to conceptualize. I don't think we can reach an agreement about what life is without metaphysics and epistemology first. So when you say that I'm missing your point, I think you are completely right.

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.

To Party Hard is an action. To define it you'll need to include concepts that only apply to the Hard kind of Party. Some may apply to just a lame Party (like a gathering of people), but some will be unique to the Hard kind of parties (like drugs and alcohol and sex at the end). Parting Hard is the only kind of parting that contains this particular set of concepts. Replication, self-sustainability, these are all independent occurrences in the world. But only the concept life is the one that requires all of these combined and simultaneous.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

I don't really know you're conscious ... you "could" be a computer program test AI algorythm for all I know

What I mean is, even if you meet me face-to-face you can't know whether I'm conscious or not. So how can consciousness be a useful test for life?

 

Why wouldn't I know you are consious?

[Rick Horton]

 

I don't really know you're conscious ... you "could" be a computer program test AI algorythm for all I know

What I mean is, even if you meet me face-to-face you can't know whether I'm conscious or not. So how can consciousness be a useful test for life?

 

I'd be more interested myself if you tried to answer your question for me. I have an argument, but maybe if you play devil's advocate you might reach it before I have to give my argument. That would be a good excersise. Of course if you aren't game, I'll give you my explanation, but I don't know if you can't anser that yourself, really.

[ribuck]

Why wouldn't I know you are consious?

 

How could you tell?

I might be conscious. Or, I might be an organism with complex responses that are triggered by various stimuli, but has no awareness of anything.

Externally, the difference is undetectable. Conventionally each of us reasons that we are conscious ourselves, therefore other humans are probably like ourselves. But that's no more than an assumption.

Let me turn it around. How do you know that your spinal column (which is structurally quite similar to your brain) does not have a separate consciousness of its own? Your brain's consciousness wouldn't be able to tell. Even your stomach has as many neurones controlling it as there are neurones in a cat's brain. How do you know your stomach doesn't have a consciousness of its own?

Consciousness is probably the least-understood aspect of life. Therefore, using consciousness to define life seems fraught with problems.

[mythness]

This is nothing more than wordplay to make a point.

 

You would have an issue with this:

You: "Object: that which has shape"

Me: "Has? Has as in 'contains' or 'holds', like a bucket holds water? It has shape?"

You: "Shape is an attribute. Object is defined by its attribute: shape."

Me: "Again, shape?"

You would then go on to explain spatial separation, boundaries, something, nothing, something just is. And this is all "rational" and "critical thinking" because you say so, or because you invoke someone else (e.g, Bill Gaede.)

 

However, I cannot use such wordplay. You ask me to explain "reflects", as if I am treating "truth" as a physical object, which I've already said is nothing more than an abstract concept (like love, happiness, anxiety, fear, et al.) One can conceptualize "truth" (concept) as one can conceptualize "shape" (concept).

 

But you, and huttnedu, are clever, and you think I don't notice your subtle exception to relying on subjective senses. Every time we state that "so and so can conceptualize such and such objectively" it is immediately preceded with interaction or observation by the subject, even when we don't notice at first (e.g, seeing, touching, hearing, relating things from experience, et al.) Which brings me to...

 

A kid is born blind, deaf, numb, without olfactory nerve, and without  cochlear nerves. (His autonomous functions keep him alive somehow, don't ask.) Do explain how he can objectively conceptualize "shape", "space", "boundary", "object". This time you cannot invoke any subjective senses or interaction with physical matter or relating things from experience. There is nothing to relate. You cannot even define "nothing" by your own standards without going around in circles, thinking no one will catch your use of "something" as "not nothing". Really cute.

 

Uh oh, I just used the terms "physical" and "matter" above, and here we go, 'round and 'round in an endless circle because we're too afraid to assume.

 

The concept "shape" only exists in your mind, like it or not, just like the concepts "truth" and "aggress". But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further. Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is. And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion." For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions. Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously. Yikes! I used the term "know". There I go, yet again...

 

I cannot conceptualize "shape" if you cannot conceptualize "truth" or "aggress" or "love" and so on.

 

Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. Not a matter of fact or opinion. Because you say so. Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something.

 

How about you get creative and instead of using the familiar terms "object", "shape", "space", "boundary", and so forth, make up new words, and then try to objectively define "flaggerdurp" (or whatever creative mashup of letters you think up) to a complete stranger.

 

I say a complete stranger, because while this was fun for me at first, it's lost my interest.

 

If you want, you can borrow mine:

Flaggerdurp: that which has moosef

[Rick Horton]

 

Why wouldn't I know you are consious?

 

How could you tell?

I might be conscious. Or, I might be an organism with complex responses that are triggered by various stimuli, but has no awareness of anything.

Externally, the difference is undetectable. Conventionally each of us reasons that we are conscious ourselves, therefore other humans are probably like ourselves. But that's no more than an assumption.

Let me turn it around. How do you know that your spinal column (which is structurally quite similar to your brain) does not have a separate consciousness of its own? Your brain's consciousness wouldn't be able to tell. Even your stomach has as many neurones controlling it as there are neurones in a cat's brain. How do you know your stomach doesn't have a consciousness of its own?

Consciousness is probably the least-understood aspect of life. Therefore, using consciousness to define life seems fraught with problems.

 

That's good stuff.  I think I have to agree, lol, based on that. 

[fingolfin]

 

 

I think you also ignored what I pointed about fungi and bacteria that do not move and don't defy gravity, but are still alive.

 

Of course they do! You have google countless timelapse videos of fungi and bacteria moving against the earth's gravitational pull, in the way rocks cannot.

 

I think we had discussed in the past about these conceptualization exercises: about objects, forces, matter and energy. So, when you say only objects can perform actions, well, that's not accurate. Energy has effects on matter, and energy is not objects.

 

Energy is an abstraction. Energy does not exist. There is literally no such thing. It's akin to saying, "Love moves mountains". Well, maybe in poetry and metaphor, but not literally — not scientifically. Energy is a god-like term used 100 different ways and is not defined rationally or consistently. At best, it has to do with units of measurement. At worst it simply means 'activity'. Concepts cannot affect matter. Only in Star Wars and religious circles do they practise psychokinesis and exorcism!

 

To Party Hard is an action.

 

Lolz! OK.

[fingolfin]

 

You would then go on to explain spatial separation, boundaries, something, nothing, something just is. And this is all "rational" and "critical thinking" because you say so, or because you invoke someone else (e.g, Bill Gaede.)

 

Irrelevant. To invoke shape is to invoke space. One cannot be without the other. Shape is bounded by space, nothing, concpetually speaking. It is impossible to imagine an object without the concept of spatial separation. Space, like motion, is a primary concept. We "discover" the intrinsic property of an object, i.e. shape, because we cannot comprehend an object without shape. No shape means literally nothing. So we can reason that shape is the only scientific criterion for objecthood. Conversely we invented logic, laws, rules, absolutes, truths and the trillions of other secondary concepts.

 

But you, and huttnedu, are clever, and you think I don't notice your subtle exception to relying on subjective senses. Every time we state that "so and so can conceptualize such and such objectively" it is immediately preceded with interaction or observation by the subject, even when we don't notice at first (e.g, seeing, touching, hearing, relating things from experience, et al.) Which brings me to...

 

Nonsense! The moon exists regardless of whether we sense it or not. The planets exist independent of whether we are here later to observer them. So we CAN be objective with our statements; we can and must remove the observer to do science. Objectivity is at the core of the scientific method!

 

A kid is born blind, deaf, numb, without olfactory nerve, and without  cochlear nerves. (His autonomous functions keep him alive somehow, don't ask.) Do explain how he can objectively conceptualize "shape", "space", "boundary", "object". This time you cannot invoke any subjective senses or interaction with physical matter or relating things from experience. There is nothing to relate. You cannot even define "nothing" by your own standards without going around in circles, thinking no one will catch your use of "something" as "not nothing". Really cute.

 

 

Not sure what this has to do with existence. If the senseless person exists, then they do so because they have shape and location. You have to remove the observer if you want to escape subjectivity!

 

Uh oh, I just used the terms "physical" and "matter" above, and here we go, 'round and 'round in an endless circle because we're too afraid to assume.

 

You're the only one going aorund in circles my friend. You need to grasp the fundamentals. To assume means to hypothesize. We assume/invoke objects (we don't "prove" them!) for the purposes of our theory. That is the foundation of the scientific method. This is how we rule out misinterpretation and perception. We take the assumptions for granted intentionally to hear the rational explanation that follows. Do we run around trying to prove that the Yeti exists?! No. It's irrelevant to the theory. Proof and truth are subjective. Proof and truth are what happens in a court of law, to convince you, twist your arm.

 

The concept "shape" only exists in your mind, like it or not, just like the concepts "truth" and "aggress".

 

All words resolve to either an object (of reality), or a concept. All words are concepts, of course! We invent all words. This is obvious, basic stuff. The key is what they resolve to. I think this is where you get confused. We didn't invent shape. Reality didn't suddenly pop into existence when we monkeys arrived one day to gawk at it! We discovered shape; we can reason objectively that the essential property that makes an object an object, is its shape (syn: architecture/structure/form). It cannot be any other criterion – just give it a try! Come on my friend, give up all this moaning and crying.

 

But each time you define it, and use new terms within the definition, I will continue to ask you to define these terms further. Otherwise, you're simply imploring me to just accept what you're saying, no matter how fancy or formally structured it is. And for some reason, you have an issue when someone says that "it's just your opinion." For people who reject "absolute", they act quite absolutist in their discussions. Whoops! I just used the term "absolute". There I go again... Apparently, no one knows what anyone is talking about, since we must define terms unambiguously. Yikes! I used the term "know". There I go, yet again...

 

Bla bla — you're going around in circles. You have to construct an argument. I already defined object and explained why shape is relevant and objective. I'm on record! I fully justified myself with arguments and have not changed my stance once on the topic. I require the same integrity of you if we are to debate.

 

I cannot conceptualize "shape" if you cannot conceptualize "truth" or "aggress" or "love" and so on.

 

Your response will of course be "rational" because you say so. Not a matter of fact or opinion. Because you say so. Oh, and no need to define "rational" because that one gets off the hook, or something.

 

Ay human being with a functioning brain can conceptualize shape. I could define rational too, but you keep going off on tangents without admitting your errors first. This is common on these forums. We must remain objective. Truth/aggress/love are not properties of an object. We visualize objects because they have shape. We define truth/aggress/love to understand them.

Concepts are the thought associations we establish with entities in our environment for the purposes of:

a) Ascribing meaning to these associations.

b) Facilitating understanding.

c) Applying utility to these associations (i.e. language, math, logic, technology, business, etc.)

 

 

How about you get creative and instead of using the familiar terms "object", "shape", "space", "boundary", and so forth, make up new words, and then try to objectively define "flaggerdurp" (or whatever creative mashup of letters you think up) to a complete stranger.

 

I say a complete stranger, because while this was fun for me at first, it's lost my interest.

 

 

Your passive agressive nonsense is irrelevant. You are the one who came here debating, and now you're running away trying to get the last word. None of this is an argument or relevant to the discussion. This is typical of the emotionality and psychologizing that takes place around here.

 

Flaggerdurp: that which has moosef

 

Congratulations, you've won a free pass to the asylum! [Y]

[fingolfin]

Just to come back on topic now that concepts and objects have been thrashed out a bit. The article redefines "life" (noun, ordinary speech) first as living/alive (adjective, scientific) and then as follows:

Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects.

As far as I can tell this is a reasonable and encapsulating definition, and relates to a given object's particular type of motion, rather than requirements or habits.

Sort of makes sense to me why the philosophers and academics out there still talk about how computer programs and nebulae are potentially "alive" — because they never worked out what "life" was to begin with.

This seems to me also fundamentally related to "free will" (volition, self-propulsion, intention).

[Victor]

 

 

I think you also ignored what I pointed about fungi and bacteria that do not move and don't defy gravity, but are still alive.

 

Of course they do! You have google countless timelapse videos of fungi and bacteria moving against the earth's gravitational pull, in the way rocks cannot.

 

Some may move. Some do not. Therefore not sufficient to serve as a categorical criteria.

 

 

I think we had discussed in the past about these conceptualization exercises: about objects, forces, matter and energy. So, when you say only objects can perform actions, well, that's not accurate. Energy has effects on matter, and energy is not objects.

 

Energy is an abstraction. Energy does not exist. There is literally no such thing. It's akin to saying, "Love moves mountains". Well, maybe in poetry and metaphor, but not literally — not scientifically. Energy is a god-like term used 100 different ways and is not defined rationally or consistently. At best, it has to do with units of measurement. At worst it simply means 'activity'. Concepts cannot affect matter. Only in Star Wars and religious circles do they practise psychokinesis and exorcism!

 

Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects.

[Victor]

Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects.

In fact, the concept Object is the real abstraction. Energy is an antecedent (parent) concept. Objects are collections of matter an energy.

[TheRobin]

A H2-molecule is already two H atoms resisting each others gravitational pull. (Else they would probably end up bein a He atom instead in the long run).By that criteria every atom that forms a molecule with another atom would need to be considered alive. (Which makes pretty much everything alive except loose atoms that don't form bonds with any others)

[Metric]

 

 

Once again, you are using an extremely non-standard definion of "science" that doesn't correspond to what scientists actually do.  I completely understand why you would like to co-opt the word for yourself, rather than bothering to use your own word.  The motives are rather obvious to everyone.

Incidentally, I agree that keeping consistent defintions is important -- however, the point is that it is arbitrary.  It is possible to describe the same phenomenon using two different sets of terminology.  Thus, the science (in the sense used by scientists) is not in the the terminology -- the terminology is just a tool (defined however you find convenient) for conveying the real and lasting thing -- the actual science.

 

Metric, while I do find it incredibly amusing to have my "motives" discerned so smugly, I'd rather stick to the actual topic.

Science is about explaining phenomena rationally, i.e. providing physical mechanisms to explain physical phenomena.

The closest you are getting to a field as practiced would be "theory" (as practiced by the subset of scientists known as theorists).  A theorist may do some of what you describe, but a theorist does a lot of other things -- predict new phenomena from fundamental principles, etc.  However, most science is experimental, and is not spending its time looking to explain well-known phenomena by "providing physical mechanisms."

Of course, you will try to get around this by implicitly redefining "science" -- I will refer to your definion as "siense" to avoid confusion with what is done by scientists.

You say:

I agree that keeping consistent defintions is important

And then you say,

 

 terminology is just a tool (defined however you find convenient)

Wait a sec.... Do we define them so that they can be used consistently or do we define them as whatever feels right (convenient) to us? Don't give us the run-around here.

 

You realize that these are not mutually exclusive, right?  There are an infinity of ways to set up consistent definions -- a scientist's job is to pick a convenient one for describing phenomena and get on with the science.  If someone else wants to use a different set of definitions, that is completely fine (perhaps slightly inconvenient).  Just as long as they are clear about their definitions to avoid confusion, they can talk back and forth and get on with the real and lasting contributions to human knowlede (which isn't the choice of terminology itself).

Example:  Defining the word "planet" and then checking to see if Pluto fits the definition is not science.  It is just a matter of setting terminology.  This is why there is ironic humor in phrases like "when I was your age, Pluto was a planet."  It is understood that nature doesn't care about your definitions.

An example of actual science would be measuring/calculating the mass of Pluto.  It is a number that may play into your definition of planet, but fundamentally it doesn't care how you define "planet" -- it is science, and it lives on regardless of your definitions.

[Mister Mister]

   I think maybe you could refine this definition, saying that life is a process of self-motivating, self-organizing, self-creating bodies. 

    I don't see why it's necessary to invoke gravity.  I will say, however, that I see gravity as it is understood to be problematic.  Despite Einstein's view that gravity is the "curvature of space" (not sure what that means), it is still generally accepted that gravity means that all mass attracts all other mass.  But this just doesn't hold up empirically.  First of all, mass is very difficult to define, but tends to depend on inertia, which is a property of motion.  Also, it is very difficult to pinpoint where matter ends and space begins.  In chemistry we see that some elements attract others and repel others with various intensity, and that noble gases neither attract nor repel.  Different substances form molecules or crystals with certain atomic spacing as the result of an equilibrium effect.  Magnets have an equal power to attract and repel.  Solids and liquids fall inwardly, but gases tend to expand outwardly.  Newton watched the apple fall but didn't wait around to watch the apple expand as gases as it decomposed.  Stars have a great power to attract, but are also thrusting light outwardly.  The "space" between stars also contains mass which may have very low density but occupy a much greater volume than the dense mass near the center of the system.  This also seems to apply to atoms and every other system.  So I see a Universal phenomena of two-way inward outward motion.  Life seems to be a process of balancing or regulating this two-way motion to accumulate matter into more and more complex forms.  Biology defines the process of Life and Evolution as beginning with the cell, but who is to say it doesn't extend to the self-organizing organic molecules, proteins, DNA, and even the stars which regulate this process?  I think science has a hard time dealing with the obvious issue that this process is in violation of the supposed law of entropy.

[huttnedu]

"Of course, you will try to get around this by implicitly redefining "science" -- I will refer to your definion as "siense" to avoid confusion with what is done by scientists."
 

Metric, it is YOU who has redefined Science. Science is about understanding... Engineering or Technology is about prediction. There is a huge difference between predicting an apple will fall to the ground and understanding why an apple falls to the ground instead of to the sky.

 

"You realize that these are not mutually exclusive, right? "
 

Yes, they are. Either words can be defined however the presenter feels (allowing for ambiguity, circularity, leaving terms undefined) or they are defined Scientifically (i.e. unambiguously and consistently).

 

"There are an infinity of ways to set up consistent definions -- a scientist's job is to pick a convenient one for describing phenomena and get on with the science.  If someone else wants to use a different set of definitions, that is completely fine (perhaps slightly inconvenient).  Just as long as they are clear about their definitions to avoid confusion, they can talk back and forth and get on with the real and lasting contributions to human knowlede (which isn't the choice of terminology itself)."
 

It doesn't matter how some OTHER scientist defines terms. What matters is that YOUR definitions are unambiguous and used consistently throughout YOUR presentation.

 

"Example:  Defining the word "planet" and then checking to see if Pluto fits the definition is not science.  It is just a matter of setting terminology.  This is why there is ironic humor in phrases like "when I was your age, Pluto was a planet."  It is understood that nature doesn't care about your definitions."
 

This is not a failure of the Scientific Method (i.e. in defining terms consistently) it is a failure in understanding what a planet is. Once we clearly define the term planet then Pluto either objectively meets that definition or it does not. 

 

""when I was your age, Pluto was a planet."
 

What you really mean here is, "When I was your age, the definition of planet was different."

 

"An example of actual science would be measuring/calculating the mass of Pluto."
 

That would be an example of Engineering or Technology. Measurement is performed by our subjective sensory system and is not a part of Science (explanation). The specific weight of Pluto cannot be part of any Scientific explanation.

You have confused Science (Hypothesis - Theory - Conclusion) with Tech/R&D/Engineering/Math (Predict - Experiment - Modify/Verify Prediction - Repeat) and because of that you have given up on explanations for even the most fundamental phenomena because you have invented the term "well-known" to describe them in order to provide the illusion that they are understood.

They are not understood, and the ability to predict events (knowledge) has nothing to do with understanding the physical mechanisms at work (Science).

[huttnedu]

"Some may move. Some do not. Therefore not sufficient to serve as a categorical criteria."

 

[Citation needed]

I don't think you can provide a single example of an organism that doesn't move itself against gravity. In other words, you cannot contradict the posited definition of alive.

 

"Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects."

 

The magnetosphere is a concept, it is the AREA in which some PHYSICAL object(s) extends from earth and performs the action we call "magnetism".  The trick to Science is determining the configuration of that object, how it relates to earth, and how it performs the magic trick we call "magnetism".

 

EM radiation, likewise, is a concept. "To radiate" is what an object DOES, not what it is. Again, Science is about formulate a rational hypothesis to explain the phenomena known as EM radiation. What physical object could possibly mediate this behavior?

 

That is the goal of Science.

[Victor]

 

"Some may move. Some do not. Therefore not sufficient to serve as a categorical criteria."

 

[Citation needed]

I don't think you can provide a single example of an organism that doesn't move itself against gravity. In other words, you cannot contradict the posited definition of alive.

 

 

Algae. Some were found to float on clouds. But by your definition even the cloud is alive. So would an air bubble in the water be alive.

 

"Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects."

 

The magnetosphere is a concept, it is the AREA in which some PHYSICAL object(s) extends from earth and performs the action we call "magnetism".  The trick to Science is determining the configuration of that object, how it relates to earth, and how it performs the magic trick we call "magnetism".

 

Because of you holding the prevalence of the concept object, you find yourself needing to invoke magic to explain magnetism.

EM radiation, likewise, is a concept. "To radiate" is what an object DOES, not what it is. Again, Science is about formulate a rational hypothesis to explain the phenomena known as EM radiation. What physical object could possibly mediate this behavior?

There is radiation generated in the vacuum of space everywhere. If radiation is an action performed by an object, then the vacuum is an object. Nothing is something.

You are irrationally holding on to an antiquated and contradictory model to describe reality, where reality is composed of objects performing actions. This, as well as your attempt to dumb down the definition of life, is an exercise of accepting the superficially apparent as truth, and then irrationally defending the arbitrary position. It's silly really.

But you're really smart. Way too smart enough to know this. I think this is some kind of marathon to see how much you can hold the thread going. I think you imagine you're gaining experience or training in argumentation.