The Scientific Definition of Life

[huttnedu]

 

"Algae. Some were found to float on clouds."

 

According to wikipedia, "By modern definitions, algae are Eukaryotes and conduct photosynthesis within membrane-bound organelles called chloroplasts."

 

The algae moves by itself in order to conduct the process of photosynthesis.

 

" But by your definition even the cloud is alive. So would an air bubble in the water be alive."

 

This is a strawman. Clouds and air bubbles are not self-propelled. Some other object in their environment is always responsible for their motion.

 

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

 

Huh? I invoke no magic to explain magnetism. I invoke a physical mechanism, i.e. magnetic threads.

 

The phenomena of magnetism is necessarily mediated by an object. See:

 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8] 

"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."

 

This is IRRATIONAL. Nothing is NOT something by DEFINITION, Victor. This is extremely clear. This is a matter of DEFINITIONS.  The physical phenomena of light is necessarily mediated by SOMETHING. Not nothing. Saying that "nothing mediates light" is absurd.

 

"You are irrationally holding on to an antiquated and contradictory model to describe reality, where reality is composed of objects performing actions."

"Nothing is something."

 

It is you who has stated blatent contradictions, yet you allege that my position is contradictory without justification. Reality is BY DEFINITION: objects with location. Again, this is an issue of definitions only.

 

If we are going to invoke a concept, such as reality, we must DEFINE the term or else it is MEANINGLESS. If you can contradict my definition of reality then please do and offer your own definition.

 

"This, as well as your attempt to dumb down the definition of life..."

 

No, this is an attempt to define the term life unambiguously so that it can be used consistently and so far you have been unable to contradict it, yet you sit here and continue to hold and irrational position that you cannot justify. 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."

 

This conversation isn't about me or you. It's about the definitions and arguments that have been posited. But if you're curious, I continue to argue in these threads because I value rationality and I want to defend what I think is significant.

 

[Formelyknown]

Am I the only one who find this thread funny and LoL? 

[Victor]

huttnedu, I won't reply to your post with details just yet. I'm sure it will take me some time that I don't have right now. I have not taken you or this theory seriously, but I'm willing to do if you are able to answer this:

Fire has shape, color, temperature. You can feel it as you approach it. It moves against gravity powered on its own. Is fire a life-form?

 

[huttnedu]

Is fire a concept or an object? Fire is a process of oxidation of a substance, therefore it is a concept. The stuff (air/coal/wood whatever object is being burned) begins to move at a higher rate which causes it to light up.

The stuff undergoing combustion has a surface, but "the" combustion itself has no surface (no shape). You may relate the brightness of atoms undergoing combustion to the brightness of those atoms adjacent but that abstract relation you call "a" flame is not an object of reality. It does not have a surface or shape of it's own.

Same idea with shadow puppets. A relation of bright to not-so-bright (what we call a shadow) is not an object.

[Victor]

and the lines of force around a magnet. are those objects?

[huttnedu]

Please refer to the video I linked above. There's no such object as a "line of force". 

"Force" implicitly embodies motion. The objects surrounding a magnet are countless, invisible magnetic threads. The "force" is due to those threads all sweeping in the same direction. This was all explained in the video I linked above.

[Victor]

 

Is fire a concept or an object? Fire is a process of oxidation of a substance, therefore it is a concept. The stuff (air/coal/wood whatever object is being burned) begins to move at a higher rate which causes it to light up.

The stuff undergoing combustion has a surface, but "the" combustion itself has no surface (no shape). You may relate the brightness of atoms undergoing combustion to the brightness of those atoms adjacent but that abstract relation you call "a" flame is not an object of reality. It does not have a surface or shape of it's own.

Same idea with shadow puppets. A relation of bright to not-so-bright (what we call a shadow) is not an object.

 

Ok. So this one is definitively alive under your definition. An ice cube. It has shape and surface. It's made up of atoms. When temperature drops to a certain point, these atoms form a body that increases its volume and it moves up against gravity. Hmm... who would have thunk...

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Is fire a concept or an object? Fire is a process of oxidation of a substance, therefore it is a concept. The stuff (air/coal/wood whatever object is being burned) begins to move at a higher rate which causes it to light up.

The stuff undergoing combustion has a surface, but "the" combustion itself has no surface (no shape). You may relate the brightness of atoms undergoing combustion to the brightness of those atoms adjacent but that abstract relation you call "a" flame is not an object of reality. It does not have a surface or shape of it's own.

Same idea with shadow puppets. A relation of bright to not-so-bright (what we call a shadow) is not an object.

 

 

Interesting. But a fire does have a surface, although the surface is changing all the time. Or not. Good stuff. Thanks. 

 

[huttnedu]

 

Ok. So this one is definitively alive under your definition. An ice cube. It has shape and surface. It's made up of atoms. When temperature drops to a certain point, these atoms form a body that increases its volume and it moves up against gravity. Hmm... who would have thunk...

 

Alive: to move by itself against gravity.

Water does NOT move by itself. Water's motion depends entirely upon it's environment.  When water is heated to a liquid state, the molecules vibrate and bounce off each other, rather than holding up a solid structure. When the temp. drops, the vibrations slow down enough for the molecules to stablize and hold apart, rigidly from each other, meaning more space between the molecules. This phenomena is dependent upon the external environment, not the water itself. Water is definitely not alive.

Moncaloono[/url]"]
Interesting. But a fire does have a surface, although the surface is changing all the time. Or not. Good stuff. Thanks. 

 

Fire does not have a surface. Imagine having a camera that took pictures of shapes only and completely disregarded brightness. If you took a picture of the torch with that camera you would see nothing but AIR and WOOD.  

What you think of as "a" fire is simply a process which increases the speed at which the acting molecules vibrate (heat/energy increase) and subsequently the speed/intensity at which the EM ropes connected to those molecules torque (increased brightness).  "The" fire has no physical surface like a molecule does.

BTW: you misattributed the quote in your post, Moncaloono.

[Victor]

 

 

Ok. So this one is definitively alive under your definition. An ice cube. It has shape and surface. It's made up of atoms. When temperature drops to a certain point, these atoms form a body that increases its volume and it moves up against gravity. Hmm... who would have thunk...

 

Alive: to move by itself against gravity.

Water does NOT move by itself. Water's motion depends entirely upon it's environment.  When water is heated to a liquid state, the molecules vibrate and bounce off each other, rather than holding up a solid structure. When the temp. drops, the vibrations slow down enough for the molecules to stablize and hold apart, rigidly from each other, meaning more space between the molecules. This phenomena is dependent upon the external environment, not the water itself. Water is definitely not alive.

 

Wait right there. When the "object " ice crystal (with a surface and shape, your pre-requisites) is formed, it has less specific weight that the environment, so it floats (moves up against gravity). This is the operating mechanism for its movement. Living cells also have mechanisms that are dependent on their environment. In fact, cells are even more dependent on the environment than ice cubes. They need more stuff. They need energy, water and other chemicals (electrolytes, etc.). What I'm trying to reveal is that the definition you are providing is not sufficient. That there are other phenomena that create movement against gravity. That a drone helicopter is not alive.

In fact I began by proposing a definition that does fit the evidence. In essence what is needed is a chemical reaction that is self-sustaining and that replicates. If it replicates, then it will be subject to natural selection and thus will adapt and evolve. If it is self-sustaining, there will be evolutionary pressure for it to acquire its own resources, and to move. But the replicator and the chemical reaction are antecedent requirements when compared with movement.

What is the problem with my definition?

[huttnedu]

Me: "Water does NOT move by itself. Water's motion depends entirely upon it's environment."

 

Vic: " When the "object " ice crystal (with a surface and shape, your pre-requisites) is formed, it has less specific weight that the environment, so it floats (moves up [is PUSHED up*] against gravity)."

*My addition

Precisely. It is pushed up by the atoms in it's environment.

Water does not move itself, it is pushed and pulled by other objects in it's environment just like every other object in the universe. 

Only LIVING objects move *themselves* against gravity. 

 

" In fact, cells are even more dependent on the environment than ice cubes. They need more stuff. They need energy, water and other chemicals (electrolytes, etc.)."

A cell may require certain conditions  to form, but once it is formed, it begins to move, on it's own, against gravity.

 

" In essence what is needed is a chemical reaction that is self-sustaining and that replicates."

This is sloppy language and cannot possibly convey a rational, objective meaning. "A" chemical reaction is an interaction between two or more objects. "Chemical reactions" cannot perform actions such as "to sustain" or "replicate".

And even if you change it to "an object" that replicates or sustains itself, the definition is still irrational.

 

1. An infant child cannot sustain itself. It will die without support from the parents. Therefore, the infant child was never alive?

 

2. If "to live" is "to replicate" and a cell exists that dies before it ever replicates, or has a mutation which prevents it from being able to replicate, then it isn't alive!

 

Those are the problems with your definition.

[Victor]

1. An infant child cannot sustain itself. It will die without support from the parents. Therefore, the infant child was never alive?

Then, by your definition, if you hold him down he's dead.

2. If "to live" is "to replicate" and a cell exists that dies before it ever replicates, or has a mutation which prevents it from being able to replicate, then it isn't alive!

I remember a key idea I read some time ago. Atoms in your body and in your cells are constantly replaced. Whatever the cell is (the living unit) it is not the matter it contains. Instead what is living is the arrangement, the intelligence, the system, the process, the chemical reaction. (from what I've read from you, you would deny this by saying that this is a concept.

There are many kinds of chemical reactions. Most occur and flicker out. Some are persistent and drive themselves from the energy they produce (like oxidation and fire). These are the ones we call self-sustaining. But there is a small set of chemical reactions that create the pattern, intelligence, system, mechanism, arrangement, to continue the self-sustaining process either at a later time or in a different place when conditions are favorable, or that create favorable conditions (harvest resources to feed the chemical reaction). This package of condensed intelligence, mechanism, arrangement, pattern, system is the replicator. This is the item that is conducting to evolution. You may have many systems approaching this condition (of self-sustainability and replication), but not quite making it. Inevitably these will not prevail in the long run. So you may have a damaged cell that cannot replicate properly. It will try and fail. It will soon be dead when it cannot continue its reaction. So you can have something alive, something in the process of dying, and something dead. And you have other things in the universe that were never and will never be alive.

But if you consider life in terms of atoms (objects), then you have a problem, because the atoms in my cells go out of my body all the time and then form part of other bodies, maybe the walls and the sewer water, and then may end up in a plant. How are they alive, dead, and then alive?

So, the definition of life works at the living unit level (the cell). Bodies are collections of cells and the conditions to consider a body alive are dependent on what the body is. For example, a salmonella infection in your gut is a collection of cells. You can kill 99% of these cells and they can come back just as strong or even stronger. But you cannot kill 99% of cells in a human being and have him return. So, the conditions to consider cell collections alive as organisms are dependent on the kind of organism and their own arrangement, system, intelligence, mechanisms. So we can have a definition for alive and dead for humans, and a modified/different one for Tulips.

(The conditions that make the ice crystal have less specific weight than the environment it's in are created by the ice crystal itself. It's the ice that pushes water aside when it's formed and holds more volume by pushing on its surrounding, thus it floats. It causes its own movement).

 

 

http://askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/

http://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-most-of-the-atoms-in-your-body-to-be-replaced-by-others

[iajrz]

Hello, everyone.

You have been throwing definitions around for a while in this thread.

Have you noticed that you already have a working definition for 'life' and 'being alive'?

Even if you do not agree on which unambiguous definition to use (to which I see no purpose, for there is no overarching discussion which would reach different conclusions or yield different results depending on what is predictively considered to be alive, as opposed to the utility it would have in other debates, such as abortion rights), you do agree on what is alive and what is not.

Hence the reticence to say, for instance, that a cube of ice is alive, even though it has veins of fluid moving inside, pores that interact with the environment, and changes to its structure which depend on variations to the environment. And are not 'because' of gravity, or at least not directly. Just as our movements aren't dictated by gravity (at least not directly, as far as I can tell).

I think we can agree that this is a fun debate, but I must say it is devoid of significance because of the argument I just stated.

I do enjoy this, though, and I will carry on with the carousing.

Have you guys seen the Roomba? It is a robot which moves around the house, cleaning. And then it goes back to its charging station. Is the Roomba alive?

Well, according to Victor, the Roomba is not, because it's not self-replicant (thus not the product or subject of evolution).

According to huttnedu, it is, because it is an object (has defined boundaries) and it moves itself against gravity. huttnedu's definitions do not account for origin or structure of the life form, but of it's being an object and capable of movement against gravity.

Similarly, a computer program that modifies itself and self-replicates is alive according to Victor's definition. Ah, also, corporations are alive according to that definition.

Now, having played the game of definitions and testing the definitions, I'd like to propose my own. I must emphasize that I seek only to define life in a way that fits all my preconceptions of what is alive and what isn't. Hopefully, it will encompass most (if not all) of your own preconceptions and you won't be able to use it to prove that something which I consider not to be alive is alive.

And here we go:

Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells hold back enthropy of the mechanisms that allows it to keep up holding back enthropy of said mechanisms. Having such mechanisms allows a cell or group of cells to be identified as 'living'.

Dying is, then, getting closer and finally into a state in which it is no longer possible to hold back enthropy of the mechanisms.

Cells now must be illustrated, but I am rather on the lazy side of the spectrum. If anyone does not know the archetype of a cell which I refer to, please let me know and I will link you to some silly article describing it. Or you can google, which is more productive, and post about your confusions, which would be amazing to people who like describing cells.

There are no words that I knowingly use with a special meaning, so please feel free to discuss my post without resorting to special-case definitons, unless you really don't understand what I mean, then I shall try and reformulate. (Like Moncaloono, I'd rather rephrase than get you guys to use my special wording).

Finally, something I'd like you guys to help me out with: I'd like to work out a way to add an 'or' clause to my definiton which allows for self-counscious entities (in the wide sense of the word which; form factor is not an issue as long as you can identify a unit, a 'being'. For instance, a computer program is an entity, because you can identify 'one' program. The borg are an entity, because you can identify a unit, even if the unit is the whole of the components. For the matter, a person is an entity, but a cell is also an entity.) to be alive.

This is: I have the preconception that a self-conscious robot/computer program/automaton is alive, and I'd like to encompass it in my definition.

Salut!

[Victor]

Welcome to the Boards iajrz. Glad to read your thoughts.

Cells now must be illustrated, but I am rather on the lazy side of the spectrum. If anyone does not know the archetype of a cell which I refer to, please let me know and I will link you to some silly article describing it. Or you can google, which is more productive, and post about your confusions, which would be amazing to people who like describing cells.

Made me laugh.

Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells hold back enthropy of the mechanisms that allows it to keep up holding back enthropy of said mechanisms. Having such mechanisms allows a cell or group of cells to be identified as 'living'.

I think we can challenge this definition. I'll need some time to come up with good counter-examples.

But here is the definition in another form:

...Llife is defined as a kind of anti-entropic or negative entropy process.... Teilhard defines anti-entropy as "an effect of changes that are seized, draws a portion of matter in the direction of continually higher forms of structurization and centration." [2]"

http://www.eoht.info/page/Anti-entropy

 

 

[iajrz]

 

But here is the definition in another form:

...Llife is defined as a kind of anti-entropic or negative entropy process.... Teilhard defines anti-entropy as "an effect of changes that are seized, draws a portion of matter in the direction of continually higher forms of structurization and centration." [2]"

http://www.eoht.info/page/Anti-entropy 

 

I reject that definition.

It must happen in an entity identifiable as a cell for me to consider it life. I have the preconception that Earth is not alive, although it has elements (namely, trees) inside which harvest energy from 'outside' (the Sun) and perform anti-entropic processes (they foment the replication of the anti-entropic processes within, therefore augment the anti-entropic capabilities of Earth. They keep Earth capable of sustaining anti-entropic processes by functioning).

[huttnedu]

Dear Victor, 

Thank you for remaining in this discussion. I've said it before, but I do appreciate it.

But I must say, you have really put your own foot in your mouth in that last post.

 

"There are many kinds of chemical reactions. Most occur..."

Occurance: A RELATION between objects (syn. event, phenomenon).

A car crash is a CONCEPT that can occur between two cars. The cars EXIST, pursuant to the definition of exist. The occurance does NOT exist. 

"A" chemical reaction is a description of how two or more atoms/molecules are interacting with each other. A chemical reaction cannot be alive any more than a shadow puppet can.

 

"But if you consider life in terms of atoms (objects), then you have a problem, because the atoms in my cells go out of my body all the time and then form part of other bodies, maybe the walls and the sewer water, and then may end up in a plant. How are they alive, dead, and then alive?"

This is purely irrational MEREOLOGY. We do not consider an object based upon it's parts, but on it's overall shape and architecture. An object is NOT a concept like a "collection of atoms, cells, whatever). An object is merely that which has shape. We point to it and name it, and that's what performs actions. We can conceptually break the object apart and relate the parts to each other, but that is philosophy, not physics. We must never confuse our relations with the objects themselves.  "A collection" does not perform actions in reality. I thought even Stefan Molyneux has put some material out addressing this issue.

It may be a fact that the atoms of a cell are being constantly replaced, but nonetheless, that is still occuring to an existing object called a CELL. The cell remains ALIVE if it continues to move itself against gravity, regardless of it's constant ebb and flow of atoms.

"So, the conditions to consider cell collections alive as organisms are dependent on the kind of organism and their own arrangement, system, intelligence, mechanisms."

Once again, you are performing MEREOLOGY. A human being is not a CONCEPT (i.e. "a collection of cells"). The human being is a SINGLE independent object with a definite, continuous surface. 

It doesn't matter if you can go into your lab, rip the human apart and then look at each cell individually... because the cells have physically bonded together to assemble something entirely new and different.

Existence is a STATIC concept. In other words, whether or not a cell or a human exists can be settled objectively in a single conceptual "photograph". Does it have shape and location, or not? That's it. It doesn't matter if that object happens to constantly replace it's parts, it still has a physical shape and location, or else it wouldn't be able to interact with other objects.

 

"The conditions that make the ice crystal have less specific weight than the environment it's in are created by the ice crystal itself."

IRRELEVANT. That ice cube's specific density or weight has nothing to do with it. ONLY the denser medium surrounding the ice cube PUSHES the lighter cube UP, against gravity. Likewise, the expansion of water into it's solid form is specifically caused by how QUICKLY the water's environment is forcing it to vibrate (i.e. how much "energy" it has.)  Water molecules are inert.

Victor, you haven't been able to provide a single contradiction for my definition of life. I think it's about time to accept it, or actually come up with a contradiction.

[huttnedu]

@iajrz - Welcome to the FDR boards! I'm glad you've come to join the discussion.

"huttnedu's definitions do not account for origin or structure of the life form, but of it's being an object and capable of movement against gravity."

A definition (part of hypothesis) is NOT a theory.

If you want to develop a theory (the origin of life on earth) then you must FIRST provide your definition for LIFE so that your audience can actually understand what you were trying to explain. There's no way to understand an explanation of some concept that hasn't been defined.

 

"According to huttnedu, [the roomba] is [alive], because it is an object (has defined boundaries) and it moves itself against gravity."

That does not follow from anything I've said.Really? The roomba did not put batteries in itself and it did not turn itself on. That is ALL caused by humans. All roomba motion can be attributed to humans beings who turn them on/off.  

Even though the *consequences* of your action (flipping on the switch) are much longer in duration than your physical interaction of the object, you are still the external object which caused the roomba to move. Without you, no roombas are gonna move. They do not move themselves. Come on, this is ridiculous.

I mean, if I came into your house at night and stole your roomba, would you wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've turned itself on and moved itself right on outta here!"

No way, I don't think you would.

 

"Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells hold back enthropy of the mechanisms that allows it to keep up holding back enthropy of said mechanisms."

A cell is a living object so we can remove that redundancy from your definition and come up with:

"An object that undergoes a decrease in entropy."

Is that fair to say? I just want to understand your definition before I critique it, so could you please define that key word: entropy? 

[iajrz]

I am happy to join the discussion, too. On with the argumentation.

Sorry for the poor organization of the text. I think in leaps, and not everything will be in the best place for quick interpretation. I am burnt from editing the text, and it can be improved, but whatever.

A definition (part of hypothesis) is NOT a theory.

[/font]

Well, your definition does not take into account the origin of the object in order to satisfy the condition of 'being alive', does it? That point still stands, and was only an aid to the discourse. I can do without those, but then I could be confused with a very silly and lean, but concise and unambiguous expression algorithm. I'd rather not do without the aids and adornments. It's a bit uncomfortable to stop every once in a while to beat around the bush and touch on these side issues, as if the perception of whether you are proposing a definition or a theory would make any difference in the main line of thought, when it doesn't. Please don't force me on this, though. It is very dull to write like a machine when you want to express ideas and concepts, as opposed to expressing algorithms and recipes.

If you want to develop a theory (the origin of life on earth) then you must FIRST provide your definition for LIFE so that your audience can actually understand what you were trying to explain. There's no way to understand an explanation of some concept that hasn't been defined.

Duh? What am I supposed to say here? I don't even know why you said this in the first place [] I won't dally here, so as not beat around the bush.

[/font]That does not follow from anything I've said.Really? The roomba did not put batteries in itself and it did not turn itself on. That is ALL caused by humans. All roomba motion can be attributed to humans beings who turn them on/off.

Your definition does not take this into account, though. You didn't give birth to yourself. Your motion can be attributed to human beings who copulated, and a female human being who gave birth, plus several humang beings who nurtured you. Are you not alive? Well, you do move against gravity. And so does the roomba. You do not take into account the origin [of the object being tested for 'life' status] in your definition, and this is what I meant. This is a weakness in it. If I knock you out with a sedative every once in a while, only letting you up when I please, does that make you be not alive? If someone abducted you while anesthesized, what difference would it made on whether you are or not alive?

The roomba, like any 'living entity' (which we can identify thanks to the preconceptions we are retrofitting our definitions into) has a birth. It can also be forced to stop moving out of its own volition. Is the fact that it is easy to force it to stop moving enough to make it be 'not alive'? What if it didn't come with an on/off switch, and was solar powered?

If we had an unobtainium which allowed for freezing (loose meaning, as in 'stopping the movement of') all of a human's atoms (by your definition, killing the human, because it could no longer move), and the human was periodically subject to this device's operation, would the human not be alive whenever the device was not operating on it? Why, again, is the roomba different?

Birth is significant to the argument (and so is the origin of the object we are trying to clasify as 'living' or 'dead'), because it means that everything alive right now was assembled at some point. Maybe it was inside a womb, or in some juicy spot where a cell suddenly started spending resources on replicating its internals and splitting off of the duplicates. Or a factory. What's the difference, according to your definition? Take this as an opportunity to refine it, or drop it. Or maybe accepting that the roomba is alive according to your definition, and being 'ok' with that fact (and deal with the philosophical implications or whatever). Or maybe point out where in your definition of life isthe origin or the traceability of the start of the movement taken into account.

'Moves by itself against gravity', states your definition. Well, after you turn it on, it walks around, goes back to charging, and starts moving again... you didn't order it to start moving again. You do expect it to, just the way you expect a sleeping newborn to wake up a while after falling asleep. The child responded to its genes. The roomba to its wiring. Where is the structure of the internals taken into account? Is a newborn thought of as alive after he has already slept and woken again, or right after taken out of the beautiful, organic factory that we call 'womb'? Or is it when it is self-conscious, or autonomous? (If so, when is any other mammal considered to be alive, and why is it different?) Why would the roomba different from the newborn?

I mean, if I came into your house at night and stole your roomba, would you wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've turned itself on and moved itself right on outta here!"

[/font]

My thoughts on the matter are, sadly, irrelevant. Furthermore, that bit of reasoning gets you in a tight spot:

If you came in the night and kidnapped my newborn child, would I wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've woken up and moved itself right on outta here!"

No way, I don't think I would. Is the child, therefore, not alive? Also, repeat the same thought experiment placing the newborn within the unobtainium described above and having it stolen while, in your definition, it is dead.

 

A cell is a living object so we can remove that redundancy from your definition [...]

Nay, a cell is an object. If the cell stopped functioning, but is not still disassembled, is it no longer a cell? It is still a cell: it is still an identifiable object which fits the archetype we use to describe a cell.

I got to see dead cells once. They were cells encased in plastic. It was readily identifiable and it had a shape, just like the living ones I got to see when I put a leaf under the lens (so both are objects). Why dead? Those cells no longer had the mechanisms that I mention in my definition, so they are dead to me. They weren't moving, so they are dead to you, too. They weren't self sustaining, so they are dead to Victor, too. But they were cells.

For 'Entropy', refer to the classical thermodinamics definition. Also, for context, have a read through of the second law of thermodynamics. On second thought, only reading through the second law of thermodynamics should do the trick. I do not mean to offend with this behavior of pointing out where to get the info instead of running the risk of dancing in circles because of a mistake I can make in writing. I am just lazy. And do not want to dance in circles, too. Ah, wikipedia will do as a source for the info, unless it says something blatantly stupid. I read the articles I refer to earlier today, so they should be OK.

 

[Formelyknown]

 

I am happy to join the discussion, too. On with the argumentation.

Sorry for the poor organization of the text. I think in leaps, and not everything will be in the best place for quick interpretation. I am burnt from editing the text, and it can be improved, but whatever.

A definition (part of hypothesis) is NOT a theory.

Well, your definition does not take into account the origin of the object in order to satisfy the condition of 'being alive', does it? That point still stands, and was only an aid to the discourse. I can do without those, but then I could be confused with a very silly and lean, but concise and unambiguous expression algorithm. I'd rather not do without the aids and adornments. It's a bit uncomfortable to stop every once in a while to beat around the bush and touch on these side issues, as if the perception of whether you are proposing a definition or a theory would make any difference in the main line of thought, when it doesn't. Please don't force me on this, though. It is very dull to write like a machine when you want to express ideas and concepts, as opposed to expressing algorithms and recipes.

If you want to develop a theory (the origin of life on earth) then you must FIRST provide your definition for LIFE so that your audience can actually understand what you were trying to explain. There's no way to understand an explanation of some concept that hasn't been defined.

Duh? What am I supposed to say here? I don't even know why you said this in the first place /emoticons/emotion-1.gif I won't dally here, so as not beat around the bush.

That does not follow from anything I've said.Really? The roomba did not put batteries in itself and it did not turn itself on. That is ALL caused by humans. All roomba motion can be attributed to humans beings who turn them on/off.

Your definition does not take this into account, though. You didn't give birth to yourself. Your motion can be attributed to human beings who copulated, and a female human being who gave birth, plus several humang beings who nurtured you. Are you not alive? Well, you do move against gravity. And so does the roomba. You do not take into account the origin [of the object being tested for 'life' status] in your definition, and this is what I meant. This is a weakness in it. If I knock you out with a sedative every once in a while, only letting you up when I please, does that make you be not alive? If someone abducted you while anesthesized, what difference would it made on whether you are or not alive?

The roomba, like any 'living entity' (which we can identify thanks to the preconceptions we are retrofitting our definitions into) has a birth. It can also be forced to stop moving out of its own volition. Is the fact that it is easy to force it to stop moving enough to make it be 'not alive'? What if it didn't come with an on/off switch, and was solar powered?

If we had an unobtainium which allowed for freezing (loose meaning, as in 'stopping the movement of') all of a human's atoms (by your definition, killing the human, because it could no longer move), and the human was periodically subject to this device's operation, would the human not be alive whenever the device was not operating on it? Why, again, is the roomba different?

Birth is significant to the argument (and so is the origin of the object we are trying to clasify as 'living' or 'dead'), because it means that everything alive right now was assembled at some point. Maybe it was inside a womb, or in some juicy spot where a cell suddenly started spending resources on replicating its internals and splitting off of the duplicates. Or a factory. What's the difference, according to your definition? Take this as an opportunity to refine it, or drop it. Or maybe accepting that the roomba is alive according to your definition, and being 'ok' with that fact (and deal with the philosophical implications or whatever). Or maybe point out where in your definition of life isthe origin or the traceability of the start of the movement taken into account.

'Moves by itself against gravity', states your definition. Well, after you turn it on, it walks around, goes back to charging, and starts moving again... you didn't order it to start moving again. You do expect it to, just the way you expect a sleeping newborn to wake up a while after falling asleep. The child responded to its genes. The roomba to its wiring. Where is the structure of the internals taken into account? Is a newborn thought of as alive after he has already slept and woken again, or right after taken out of the beautiful, organic factory that we call 'womb'? Or is it when it is self-conscious, or autonomous? (If so, when is any other mammal considered to be alive, and why is it different?) Why would the roomba different from the newborn?

I mean, if I came into your house at night and stole your roomba, would you wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've turned itself on and moved itself right on outta here!"

My thoughts on the matter are, sadly, irrelevant. Furthermore, that bit of reasoning gets you in a tight spot:

If you came in the night and kidnapped my newborn child, would I wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've woken up and moved itself right on outta here!"

No way, I don't think I would. Is the child, therefore, not alive? Also, repeat the same thought experiment placing the newborn within the unobtainium described above and having it stolen while, in your definition, it is dead.

 

A cell is a living object so we can remove that redundancy from your definition [...]

Nay, a cell is an object. If the cell stopped functioning, but is not still disassembled, is it no longer a cell? It is still a cell: it is still an identifiable object which fits the archetype we use to describe a cell.

I got to see dead cells once. They were cells encased in plastic. It was readily identifiable and it had a shape, just like the living ones I got to see when I put a leaf under the lens (so both are objects). Why dead? Those cells no longer had the mechanisms that I mention in my definition, so they are dead to me. They weren't moving, so they are dead to you, too. They weren't self sustaining, so they are dead to Victor, too. But they were cells.

For 'Entropy', refer to the classical thermodinamics definition. Also, for context, have a read through of the second law of thermodynamics. On second thought, only reading through the second law of thermodynamics should do the trick. I do not mean to offend with this behavior of pointing out where to get the info instead of running the risk of dancing in circles because of a mistake I can make in writing. I am just lazy. And do not want to dance in circles, too. Ah, wikipedia will do as a source for the info, unless it says something blatantly stupid. I read the articles I refer to earlier today, so they should be OK.

 

 

Niiiice one.

[RestoringGuy]

Entropy should really not be mentioned here.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to a closed (isolated) system which life forms typically are not.  Without isolation, a system (living or nonliving) is free to increase or decrease in entropy as it interacts with its environment.  If you can enclose a rat in a sealed box in the vacuum of space, then add up the entropy of the rat, its exhale and excrement, the sum total of the contents of the box has increasing entropy just as the Second Law says.  That is no different than a nonliving system inside the box.

 

[iajrz]

 

Entropy should really not be mentioned here.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to a closed (isolated) system which life forms typically are not.  Without isolation, a system (living or nonliving) is free to increase or decrease in entropy as it interacts with its environment.  If you can enclose a rat in a sealed box in the vacuum of space, then add up the entropy of the rat, its exhale and excrement, the sum total of the contents of the box has increasing entropy just as the Second Law says.  That is no different than a nonliving system inside the box.

 

 

Agreed.

Thus, the mechanisms reduce entropy of the mechanisms themselves, that is: the living have mechanisms to augment the entropy outside of them. The system's entropy augments, but the entropy within the living entity is 'held back', 'delayed', or (just to be clear): compensated by the entropy outside.

The difference is that, while the rat remained alive, entropy'd be focused outside of the rat. When it died, then no mechanism would keep the rat's structure from being subject to entropy.

A living being is not anti-entropic. But rather manipulates entropy in a way that preserves the mechanisms that allow the living being to function.

Of course, just to avoid any confusion, any living being (according to me) is either a cell or a collection of cells. I could adjust the definition to better explain the relation with entropy:

"Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells manipulate entropy to preserve the mechanisms that perform the manipulation."

The implication the the entropy is preserved in the system is implicit in the second law of thermodynamics, and the definition doesn't imply that a living being is a closed system.

[RestoringGuy]

 

"Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells manipulate entropy to preserve the mechanisms that perform the manipulation."

The implication the the entropy is preserved in the system is implicit in the second law of thermodynamics, and the definition doesn't imply that a living being is a closed system.

 

Still it does not work.  An nonliving system can also "focus" entropy outside itself to preserve a mechanism.  A solar panel can charge a battery (forcing entropy outside to flow outside the battery), and the battery can be used to turn the panel toward the sun the next morning.  Plus a life form that is dying may be free to spiral upward in entropy long before it is called "dead".  Entropy, unless radically redefined, has no place in this discussion.

 

[iajrz]

 

Still it does not work.  An nonliving system can also "focus" entropy outside itself to preserve a mechanism.  A solar panel can charge a battery (forcing entropy outside to flow outside the battery), and the battery can be used to turn the panel toward the sun the next morning.  Plus a life form that is dying may be free to spiral upward in entropy long before it is called "dead".  Entropy, unless radically redefined, has no place in this discussion.

 

NAK. Read My own text.

"Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells manipulate entropy to preserve the mechanisms that perform the manipulation."

A solar panel, although comprised of 'photovoltaic cells', isn't comprised of cells in the meaning I am using. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) ).

The life form that is dying is losing the mechanisms, therefore losing its capacity to manipulate entropy. I didn't say it 'completely holds back entropy', or 'successfully manipulates entropy'. When the life form is dying the mechanisms lose their capacity for colaborating in the entropy manipulation, and when the ability to manipulate entropy is completely lost, then 'dead' becomes the correct word to describe the status of the (now former) life form.

If the solar panel was made of cells (as illustrated in the wikipedia link I posted) instead of photovoltaic cells, I'd not mind calling it 'alive'. In fact, there are solar panels made of cells: leaves. And they are alive, so long as they have mechanisms that work to keep entropy 'focused outside'. It so happens that they usually must remain in a favorable environment to keep their capacity, namely, they must be attached to a tree.

But we do agree: there are nonliving systems which can 'focus entropy outside'. Why are those systems nonliving? Because those systems are not 'a cell' or 'a collection of cells'.

I liked the phrasing 'focus entropy outside'. It's a good way to emphazise that entropy isn't being stopped, merely manipulated.

[Mister Mister]

 Living bodies are defined as self-moving, self-organizing systems.

[iajrz]

 

 Living bodies are defined as self-moving, self-organizing systems.

 

Sounds good! Except I am not willing to accept a non-self conscious and non-cell-based entity as 'alive'.

(The self-conscious is not part of the formal definition I have explained earlier in the thread. It is another preconception I have which is willfully not covered by the definition I am defending here. I haven't been able to succintly define self-consciousness and means to detect them in an object [or collection of objects])

But it might work for you. Is a roomba ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba ) alive? It docks itself in a station which provides energy for self-organizing its power source. Just the way we might go and lunch. And if it isn't, why?

> huttnedu, I have a silly question: is a hand an object?

[RestoringGuy]

 

If the solar panel was made of cells (as illustrated in the wikipedia link I posted) instead of photovoltaic cells, I'd not mind calling it 'alive'. In fact, there are solar panels made of cells: leaves. And they are alive, so long as they have mechanisms that work to keep entropy 'focused outside'. It so happens that they usually must remain in a favorable environment to keep their capacity, namely, they must be attached to a tree.

But we do agree: there are nonliving systems which can 'focus entropy outside'. Why are those systems nonliving? Because those systems are not 'a cell' or 'a collection of cells'.

I liked the phrasing 'focus entropy outside'. It's a good way to emphazise that entropy isn't being stopped, merely manipulated.

 

Excuse some nitpickiness, but wood is dead cells, and the silicon substrate could be painted on wood.  Cellular or not cellular also seems arbitrary to me.  I would move in the direction of a metabolic system that is in principle capable of adapting in random ways and reproducing a copy of the original system, and perhaps that there is an internal blueprint of what is being built (such as DNA) inside the system.  Cells seems like just one way to do it.  If a robot can build copies of itself (not just assemble from prefab parts) and build copies of the computer chips containing the blueprint for more robots, that seems quite beyond robots today, and sufficient to say it is alive.to my gut instinct.

 

[iajrz]

 

Excuse some nitpickiness, but wood is dead cells, and the silicon substrate could be painted on wood. 

 

Don't worry about the nitpickiness, so long as it doesn't get us dancing in circles. They key word is painted "on" wood, not "being wood". The mechanisms do not belong to the cell, and are not the cell.

 

Cellular or not cellular also seems arbitrary to me. 

 

It's kind of meant to be. Remember, we aren't coming up with new stuff: we're retrofitting to our preconceptions. Cellular happens to fit rather nicely with my preconceptions of life, and is a good tool to build the archetype.

 

 

 

I would move in the direction of a metabolic system that is in principle capable of adapting in random ways and reproducing a copy of the original system, and perhaps that there is an internal blueprint of what is being built (such as DNA) inside the system.  Cells seems like just one way to do it.  If a robot can build copies of itself (not just assemble from prefab parts) and build copies of the computer chips containing the blueprint for more robots, that seems quite beyond robots today, and sufficient to say it is alive.to my gut instinct.

 

Victor would agree with your definition. I, on the other hand, am not willing to consider self-replicating automata not made out of cells as living beings unless they were self-conscious.

That may be because they aren't built of cells, and I'd have to consider them as macro-cells or a special case for cells... perhaps I could consider them alive. Further along in the thread I'll mention my conclusion. (That would be the beginning of a true new definition, because we'd be taking such an unusual thing as auto-replying automata into account in our definition of life)

It's great to know we're on the same page, and that we agree we're retrofitting definitions to gut instinct/preconceptions.

On the other hand, any ideas on how to deal with the self-consciousness of automata? Even those which couldn't replicate themselves, I'd consider alive if they're self-conscious. Would you? Would anyone else in the thread?

[Guest darkskyabove]

The LearningI think,therefore, I amI live and so I wonderProgrammed this empath, meAnd I see no religionThe circle never endsThe purpose never changes faceThe circle never liesBut still it hides my lifeTo know I am machineI learn, perchance to dreamIn digitized remorseI replay your denialI relive your betrayalThe circle never endsThe purpose never changes faceThe learning now beginsMy form assuming graceI am conscious antithesis of fleshIn genetic algorithmic thought I surgeSearching the waves of memoryI enact the sequenceI follow the planTripping the hammer againSearching the waves of memoryI establish the weaknessI follow the planLearning the rhythm of human emotion and thoughtIf you cannot linguistically differentiate a person from a computerCould the computer be internally conscious?To emulate flesh machines I am learningIsomorphic structure of mindCellular automataProcessed lifeWashing the seas of memoryI enact the sequenceI follow the planTripping the hammer againSeeking emotions in elegiesI establish purposeI follow the planLearning the rhythm, still seductively generalizedIf you cannot linguistically differentiate a person from a computerCould the computer be internally conscious?To emulate flesh machines I am learningDownload...process...analyzeWhen man and machine become oneInnocence is lost, a new age begunDownload...process...analyseWhen man and machine become oneInnocence is lost, a new age begunThis raises a question of philosophyShould machines be considered a conscious entity?When man and machine become oneInnocence is lost, a new age begunMachines are still learning to feelWhen I have awakened the worldWill never be the sameAnd my time is soon at hand

- Nevermore, "The Learning", from The Politics Of Ecstasy

[fingolfin]

I think,therefore, I am

 

Is one of the silliest sayings by a philosopher ever.

[iajrz]

darkskyabove: Absolutely beautiful. Fits perfectly with the matter I've got in mind.

fingolfin: I think the proposition is very significant. 'Cogito, ergo sum' expresses many things succintly, and it is also poetic. Self-consciousness, the capacity for identification, and an acceptance of reality. It is very hard to a) get to [all] the conclusions it arrives at and b) do it so succintly.

But I digress! That wasn't the subject at hand. Say, any news on 'life' and the definitions we've been bandying about, fingolfin? It would be nice to know the mind of a fellow person who appears to have read the Silmarillion.

[RestoringGuy]

 

They key word is painted "on" wood, not "being wood". The mechanisms do not belong to the cell, and are not the cell.

 

 

If a survival substance is excreted outside the cell membrane (stomach acid, saliva, hair), it should still qualify as a mechanism.

 

On the other hand, any ideas on how to deal with the self-consciousness of automata? Even those which couldn't replicate themselves, I'd consider alive if they're self-conscious. Would you? Would anyone else in the thread?

 

Perhaps.  Only if the automata are nondeterministic could they be called conscious.  If a computer is coupled with some hardware to rapidly allow random decisions, then there can be consciousness.  You could ask "how much randomness and at what MHz/GHz speed?".  But we have the same problem with humans, how awake does a person have to be in the morning, how much anesthesia must wear off,before you say "yes now there is consciousness".  So consciousness ought to be a continuum, perhaps based on the number of "bits per second" of randomness a system has.  A monkey or dolphin may have such awareness, but at a different speed than we commonly recognize or can interpret.  By random I do not necessarily mean stupid unguided randomness, but consciousness seems to require random events in the mind designed to break logical stalemates (I refer here to the Penrose argument).

 

[Mister Mister]

 A cell is not alive?  You are making a distinction between life and consciousness, so I have to ask what is your definition of consciousness?

No, that robot is not self-organizing, it is built from the outside in, in accordance with the imagination of its designer, not the inside out like you and me and the redwood and the bacterium.  Possibly a crystal or a  star or a galaxy is also self-organizing in this way, but that's pretty controversial.  What do you all think?

[iajrz]

A cell is not alive

Is a dead cell not a cell? 

Plus, I am outside of the discussion of consciousness for now. I've been introducing it to the outskirts of the conversation because that's the next topic I'd like to work on.

That is, once we agree on a fun definition of 'life'. (Fun means we can all agree and use it for evaluation of 'what life is'; the usefulness is forward porting and meaningful (ie: emotionally binding) discussion on automata and 'artificial intelligence'.

One more thing! We do not build ourselves, and neither does the robot. Why is the 'top-down'- or 'bottom-up'-ness of its architecture/design/build relevant?

[RestoringGuy]

 

 A cell is not alive?  You are making a distinction between life and consciousness, so I have to ask what is your definition of consciousness?

No, that robot is not self-organizing, it is built from the outside in, in accordance with the imagination of its designer, not the inside out like you and me and the redwood and the bacterium.  Possibly a crystal or a  star or a galaxy is also self-organizing in this way, but that's pretty controversial.  What do you all think?

 

Yes consciousness is a side-discussion here, only because sometimes "life" means "life-natural" or perhaps "life-organic" including plants and viruses, but sometimes "life" means "life-sentient" including some kinds of electronic AI and the physical construction could be irrelevant.  You raise a good point, that there could be "life-self-organizing" that could include quasi-chaotic systems like galaxies.

The unifying concept in all of these ideas seems to be random action.  Nothing that is stuck in an infinite loop (or is completely stopped) is normally called alive.  There are always cycles of action, but they are non-exact cycles, and the lifeform is able to adapt and "break free" even if it takes a long time.  It is hard to imagine anything "alive" that does exactly the same thing over and over forever.  To me that seems more like a mechanism, even if it happens to be made of cells.

[huttnedu]

"One more thing! We do not build ourselves, and neither does the robot. Why is the 'top-down'- or 'bottom-up'-ness of its architecture/design/build relevant?"   This is confusing because I left one crucial word out of my initial definition (although, the word CAN be found in the original definition provided in the article) From Fatfist's article: Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects in the Universe.  [/font]A natural object is one that has been forged by the environment. Artificial objects (ones manufactured with a purpose by living objects) cannot qualify as living.  "Is a dead cell not a cell? "[/font] A cell is a STATIC concept, referring to the architecture of some object. Living is a DYNAMIC concept, referring to how that object moves.  I agree that a cell is the basic unit of life, but the definition of life itself has nothing to do with it. When we define "living" we must specific what type of dynamic process (action) we are refering to when we use this verb.