The Scientific Definition of Life

[RestoringGuy]

It seems like "random" is also a dynamic concept.  You could not say 12 is a random number and 13 it not random, for example.  It is all about the process of generating the numbers, rather than the numbers themselves.

[Victor]

Sorry I didn’t get back to you earlier. Have a lot in my plate lately.

The thought that stays at the center of my thinking is that objects are a useful way to conceptualize reality. Processes are also useful. Both of these forms of conceptualization make use of what actually exists (mater and energy) and just serve as ways to present what matter and energy are doing (how they are inter-relating) in order to allow predictions and explanations. But you arbitrarily elevate objects over processes (both ways of conceptualizing phenomena, or occurrences in reality) and obscure or deny this other aspect of conceptualization, where prevailing/recurrent/dominant/systemic ways or inter-relations (processes) of matter and energy that we can identify and use to describe what happens to matter and energy over time (objects), how they are shaped and transformed in predictable ways.

I think what you think is a breakthrough in thinking and is generating a different (challenging) worldview is that you are reducing the definition of existence (that which is composed or matter and/or energy and interacts with matter and/or energy) into that which is an object. For me this is like what religious people do when they go back to bronze-age descriptions of reality in order to get insights into our world of today.

So an explosion is a concept that describes a process (a system of inter-relation) where matter and energy describe a series of patterns. The bomb is an object (a collection of atoms that have matter and energy), but the shockwave is not. The shockwave is a concept that describes a process (a systematic inter-relationship of matter and energy). While the debris and shrapnel are objects, the blast, flash or bang are not. But they all exist, if you consider that what they describe is matter and energy inter-relating (what actually exists is the matter and energy, but these concepts of objects and processes describe the matter and energy that exists).

The reason why Objects interacting is not sufficient to describe reality is that we have extraordinarily abundant evidence of phenomena/events/inter-relations of things that cannot be objects because they don’t have mass and have no shape (neutrinos, photons, etc). Modern technology would be impossible if we had not abandoned this dysfunctional paradigm of thinking that reality is composed of stuff that can be grabbed and has shape and feel to it.

So, you come in with a definition of life where something is alive if it’s an object moving against gravity on its own (and a natural object at that… a sort of self-serving clause Skynet would say). Now, I’ve presented a series of examples of things that are objects that move against gravity on their own and are not intuitively considered alive (including a natural one, sorry Skynet):

•    A drone helicopter is an object that spins wings (pushing a rotor to turn) and these wings create a difference of pressure in the air around them that result in the object moving up against gravity, powered by its own engine and energy.•    An ice cube is an object that pushes water aside when it crystallizes, creating a difference in specific weight or weight-to-volume ratio, resulting in the object moving up against gravity, powered by the energy states in the H2O atoms that compose it; its own energy.

Maybe, if you could actually prove and establish your definition, drone helicopters and ice cubes are actually alive. Who knows? But you have not succeeded in doing so yet.Now, for the stuff that we intuitively consider alive (bacteria, fungi, Tasmanian devils), we have a definition that encompasses all these cases and does not allow for weird stuff to get in the list. Plus the definition helps to describe how life started and can be used to model what/how life in other worlds may be.

In this definition life is a process. There are objects that are performing this process, and there are objects which cannot continue with this process, and there are other objects that stopped performing the process all together. There are different objects with different characteristics and particular ways to perform this process, so, the actual specific requirements vary from kinds of objects (species), but the overall process is the same.

Life (as a process) is matter and energy (chemicals) interacting in a specific way. What’s key about this exercise in conceptualization is that the chemicals interact and change, are interchanged with the environment, discarded and used up, but what continues is the process. And it is alive as long as this process, this interaction, continues to occur in the specific way, even if the chemicals coming together are themselves different objects). You could say that the process of life got started some four billion years ago on this planet, and has continued to this day through an almost countless stream of different objects (cells). These cells were or are alive while they participate in this process.

A human body (and object) set in flames has its chemicals interacting far after most cells are broken and destroyed. So, it’s not only for there to be a self-sustaining chemical process to decide if something is alive; just as much as one cannot say something is alive because it moves against gravity, or dead fish in a pond, as they move up to the surface, must be considered alive.

I’ve given the definition before. No need to state it again. But I must say that, other than this discussion in conceptualization, I don’t find that this definition has been challenged.

 

[huttnedu]

"The thought that stays at the center of my thinking is that objects are a useful way to conceptualize reality. Processes are also useful."

 

Usefulness is entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand. What's useful to me is worthless to you, and vice versa. Objects are NOT "a useful way..." (a concept). The term object refers to "that which has shape." If you are refering to a shape/form then you are referring to an object. It's that simple. We don't define objects- definitions are given to concepts- we simply point to the object in question and give it a name.

 

"Both of these forms of conceptualization make use of what actually exists (mater and energy) and just serve as ways to present what matter and energy are doing (how they are inter-relating) in order to allow predictions and explanations."

 

First, concepts are understood or conceived, objects are visualized. We must be consistent with our terms. Second, you really need to define exist in an unambiguous and non-contradictory way. Here's an article on what a Scientific Definition is: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Scientific-Definition

 

You are clearly using an ambiguous definition if it leads you to conclude that both matter AND the conceptual "potential ability" of matter (i.e. energy) both exist. The term exist can only refer to objects with location when defined rationally.

 

" But you arbitrarily elevate objects over processes (both ways of conceptualizing phenomena, or occurrences in reality)"

 

I am not "elevating" the category of objects over anything. Reification is ambiguous irrationality. This isn't poetry class- the motion of concepts is impossible.

 

ALL that I have done is defined terms rationally, and explained how your arguments and definitions are irrational. Plain and simple.

 

"you are reducing the definition of existence (that which is composed or matter and/or energy and interacts with matter and/or energy) into that which is an object."

 

The definition of exist is: objects with location.  An objects requires a location (i.e. a distance to all other objects in the universe). There can be imaginary objects too. The term object is completely distinct from exist.

 

I understand that it's taken millenia to rationally define the term exist, and I didn't do it myself, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In order to have meaning, all concepts are defined unambiguously. In order to even use the term exist meaningfully, you must provide a rational definition.

 

"That which is composed of matter and energy" asserts that energy can "compose", or "form" a thing. Thing is synonymous with "object" and the definition of object is that which has shape. You are stating that "energy" or "the ability to do work (i.e. motion)" has a shape. That is clearly not the case, as you cannot illustrate "an" energy. Furthermore, the concept of energy, like all concepts, necessarily RELATES two or more objects or positions of an object. So your definition of exist includes a reference to "matter" which is a synonym for objects, and the concept of energy which belongs nowhere in the same category as objects.

 

"For me this is like what religious people do when they go back to bronze-age descriptions of reality in order to get insights into our world of today."

 

No, what religious people do is they define terms ambiguously and assert dualities (that something is both a concept and an object). They also use reifications (perform actions with concepts). Religion is ambiguous and contradictory. An irrational explanation. Science (rational explanation) is the complete opposite.

 

"So an explosion is a concept... The bomb is an object... While the debris and shrapnel are objects, the blast, flash or bang are not. But they all exist." 

 

The bomb, shrapnel, debris all exist because they have shape. "The explosion" doesn't interact with ANYTHING. "The explosion" is a relation between the bomb and it's surroundings. It expands the air out around it rapidly, the chemicals inside of the bomb react with each other violently, torquing the EM ropes around it very hard... this whole interaction can only be explained rationally by using objects. To say that the house was destroyed by "an explosion" is fine for everyday speak, but not in Science when we attempt to explain phenomena such as heat, light, ect.

 

But, this is the kind of conclusion you come to when you use an irrational definition of exist. 

 

"we have extraordinarily abundant evidence of phenomena/events/inter-relations of things that cannot be objects because they don’t have mass and have no shape (neutrinos, photons, etc)."

 

Evidence is necessarily verified by a subjective observer. Evidence is a concept and we cannot have it. Evidence in a Scientific sense can only refer to hypothesis which are meant to be taken for granted at FACE VALUE (i.e. an assumption) in order to explain a theory. What the Scientists observe in the lab is some wacky stuff, but they- like any of us- look at their results and then go back home to produce MODELS or EXHIBITS to explain the behavior. The problem is that nowadays, the behavior is explained IRRATIONALLY. Without a shape (i.e. boundary, architecture, form) there is NOTHING to contact, NOTHING to interact with. Objects must have shape; concepts have no shape, and concepts do not perform actions, as I have already established. Interaction, mediation, influence... are all concepts which embody a surface to surface contact between two or more objects. Without contact- there's no interaction. Any hypothesis involving "an actor" with no shape and no size is irrational. 

 

"Modern technology would be impossible if we had not abandoned this dysfunctional paradigm of thinking that reality is composed of stuff that can be grabbed and has shape and feel to it."

 

Technology is done by TRIAL and ERROR. 

 

"I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work." - Thomas A. Edison

 

The inventors do their tinkering and then the Scientists attempt to explain the phenomena. I've already explained all of this but check out this hub for a detailed look: http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/The-REAI-Scientific-Method

 

" A drone helicopter is an object that spins wings (pushing a rotor to turn) and these wings create a difference of pressure in the air around them that result in the object moving up against gravity, powered by its own engine and energy."

 

I already ammended my definition to "natural object", which was my mistake and did not represent the rational definition that was already provided in the article originally posted. That excludes the drone copter from being alive.

 

"An ice cube is an object that pushes water aside when it crystallizes, creating a difference in specific weight or weight-to-volume ratio, resulting in the object moving up against gravity, powered by the energy states in the H2O atoms that compose it; its own energy."

 

The motion of an ice cube is entirely resultant from chemical interactions between water molecules which is dependent upon the environment of the water. By definition, a living object generates motion on it's own independent of it's environment.

 

"Maybe, if you could actually prove and establish your definition"

 

We don't prove definitions. We propose them. If they are unambiguous and can be used with complete consistency then they are rational.

 

"In this definition life is a process... Life (as a process) is matter and energy (chemicals) interacting in a specific way..."

 

This is entirely ambiguous. Sodium + vinegar is a chemical process. It involves chemicals acting in a specific way... are they alive? No! Your definition is ambiguous and allows for contradictions. 

 

"[dead fish] move up to the surface, must be considered alive."

 

Yes, and a balloon rises when you let it go. Do these things move themselves? NO! Please think more thoroughly about your statements before you post them. It's completely obvious that the fish is moved BY THE WATER and the balloon is moved BY THE ATMOSPHERE. They do not move on their own.

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

Yes, and a balloon rises when you let it go. Do these things move themselves? NO! Please think more thoroughly about your statements before you post them. It's completely obvious that the fish is moved BY THE WATER and the balloon is moved BY THE ATMOSPHERE. They do not move on their own.

 

 

By Newton's laws, that happens with all things.  When I walk, the atoms of the earth/grass push my shoes forward, and the earth itself moves backward with equal force.  Without that pushing, the movement of my feet would get no traction, so I am also moved by the grass as well as my feet.  A flying bird is also moved by the atmosphere with equal force as atmosphere is moved by it.  The idea of "what moves" also seems not too clear.  The whole earth moves "on it's own" as does every object in orbit.

[huttnedu]

 

 

 

Yes, and a balloon rises when you let it go. Do these things move themselves? NO! Please think more thoroughly about your statements before you post them. It's completely obvious that the fish is moved BY THE WATER and the balloon is moved BY THE ATMOSPHERE. They do not move on their own.

 

 

By Newton's laws, that happens with all things.  When I walk, the atoms of the earth/grass push my shoes forward, and the earth itself moves backward with equal force.  Without that pushing, the movement of my feet would get no traction, so I am also moved by the grass as well as my feet.  A flying bird is also moved by the atmosphere with equal force as atmosphere is moved by it.  The idea of "what moves" also seems not too clear.  The whole earth moves "on it's own" as does every object in orbit.

 

All motion is RELATIVE, but that is irrelevant to the definition of life. A bird pushing it's own wings against the atmosphere to fly up against gravity is completely different from a balloon rising because the atmosphere pushes it. The balloon does not push back- the bird does. The bird's motion is indepedent of (i.e. not caused by) it's environment. Just like how the earth moves around the sun BECAUSE OF and not irrespective of gravity.   Surely you understand that.

It's amusing that you all continue to strawman ONE part of the definition or the other. Either you attack the "motion on it's own" or "motion against gravity"  instead of actually addressing the complete definition. Can you provide one contradiction of "natural objects' independent motion against gravity"?  No. The definition stands as rational. 

[RestoringGuy]

 

All motion is RELATIVE, but that is irrelevant to the definition of life. A bird pushing it's own wings against the atmosphere to fly up against gravity is completely different from a balloon rising because the atmosphere pushes it. The balloon does not push back- the bird does. The bird's motion is indepedent of (i.e. not caused by) it's environment. Just like how the earth moves around the sun BECAUSE OF and not irrespective of gravity.   Surely you understand that.

It's amusing that you all continue to strawman ONE part of the definition or the other. Either you attack the "motion on it's own" or "motion against gravity"  instead of actually addressing the complete definition. Can you provide one contradiction of "natural objects' independent motion against gravity"?  No. The definition stands as rational. 

 

The balloon absolutely does push back.  Momentum is conserved. Whatever upward momentum the balloon gains is applied as downward momentum to the atmosphere.  It is tiny amount, but it is equal by basic physics.  A bird is the same way, the forces are equal.  Orbit is exchange between potential and kinetic energy, so you're right that path is maintained because of gravity, but ability to move is not caused by gravity.  While approaching apehelion, the object is moving against gravity at the expense of losing speed.

I do not "attack" and that seems like a slightly abrasive answer.  Just point out aspects of meaning.  I do not know what it means to say something moves "on it's own" or why gravity should be mandatory.  I cannot see why a non-moving and/or weightless object drifting in zero gravity should automatically be non-living.  For sure I cannot see why a bird and airplane have different movement with regard to the term "on it's own".  If you would please consider the word Moving to include internal  metabolism or flow of nutrients or even information carriers, it would make more sense to me.  Please  tell me why my meaning is not correct.

 

[Victor]

I think usefulness is all that matters when we are discussing conceptualization at higher levels/ranges of reality. Of course a valid concept (that which accurately describes Matter and Energy inter-relations) should be more useful than an invalid one, but we have too many invalid concepts that are still useful to utilize in our discussions (God, Policeman, etc.).

"That which is composed of matter and energy" asserts that energy can "compose", or "form" a thing. Thing is synonymous with "object" and the definition of object is that which has shape. You are stating that "energy" or "the ability to do work (i.e. motion)" has a shape. That is clearly not the case, as you cannot illustrate "an" energy. Furthermore, the concept of energy, like all concepts, necessarily RELATES two or more objects or positions of an object. So your definition of exist includes a reference to "matter" which is a synonym for objects, and the concept of energy which belongs nowhere in the same category as objects.

Reality is composed of matter and energy. Objects are concepts we use to describe what matter and energy are doing. We can favor to have a special category for these concepts (objects) because it’s useful to describe reality at our range and level of existence always referring these, but objects are just concepts, and as such they can be valid and invalid in reference to evidence of matter and energy. They don’t exist by themselves. Matter and energy are what exist. To test this just put or take matter and energy into or out of any object and see what happens. The concept object is still valid, in the sense that the description of what/how matter is organized may still be an accurate description of matter and energy, but what actually exists is matter an energy, and is matter and energy inter-relating what we should use to ultimately judge the validity of models and concepts (not objects inter-relating).

Now, an atom is not an object. You define Object as that which has shape. But physics has shown us that shape is not a valid concept. Shape refers to a geometrical description of the space occupied by the object, determined by its external boundary, but there is no external boundary in an atom. There are fields operating within the atom, and these fuzzily describe geometrical forms, but these cannot be considered as any kind of external boundary as particles penetrate the atom and go through it all the time. It’s even worse with the electron. Physicists have determined the mass of the electron, but have been unable to identify a shape (and if it had a shape it would be a contradiction with reality because its equatorial speed required to produce its magnetic field would need to be larger than the speed of light. So, although non-intuitive, it is still rational in the sense that the model is not self-contradictory).

There are many non-intuitive (non-relatable to our everyday experience at our range of existence) identifications that lead scientist to drop the paradigm of thinking in terms of objects. Consider spin or angular momentum of particles and symmetries.

http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html

In order to define existence, you then need to drop/abandon/don’t-hang-on-to the concept object and the idea of shape. Drop that. No need for it. It will just confuse you, or render your capacity to describe and predict reality futile and powerless in ranges other than those you can grab with your cumbersome hands.

Yes. Energy can compose a "thing", but we require it's aggregated into mass first. Energy can come together and give matter to where there was none. Energy can leave something and reduce its matter. It happens all the time everywhere. Matter and energy are interchangeable. So the concept "thing" is problematic.

A good example of this is a nuclear power plant that takes Uranium 235, turns it into a Uranium 236 atom by hitting it with a Neutron, and breaks it down into Barium 141 and Krypton 92. There is mass missing there; but that mass was turned into energy making electrons “flow” through a wire. At the other end of the wire, a particle accelerator takes the moving electrons and uses their energy to crash two Protons (ionized hydrogen atoms or nuclei) together. The more energy they put into the Protons, the heavier particles they’ll create during the blast. So they end up with new “created” mass from the added energy. For whatever “it” is (the newly created particles), to be considered a thing by us we require “it” to have mass. But what gave “it” mass was not massive, and we can follow the chain of interactions and realize we are following energy.

Because we know what reality is composed of (matter and energy), and matter tends to aggregate to form atoms (lower energy states are preferred and an atom is an easier/more stable/lower energy state for massive particles to exist), while energy is interchangeable with matter and processes that do this conversion are operating all the time everywhere (with unknowns/unresolved issues like the lack of detectable radioactive decay of protons), we don’t need to base our models on aggregates of matter and energy (objects), especially since these cannot be used to describe all phenomena.

A hydrogen atom is a very specific concept representing a very specific thing, and yet we have variations in terms of isotopes and ionization level. A glass of water (physically) is much farther from being a specific thing, even if you had very specific descriptions of its weight, temperature, volume, etc. It’s just useful to have and work with this word/concept.

Evidence is necessarily verified by a subjective observer. Evidence is a concept and we cannot have it. Evidence in a Scientific sense can only refer to hypothesis which are meant to be taken for granted at FACE VALUE (i.e. an assumption) in order to explain a theory. What the Scientists observe in the lab is some wacky stuff, but they- like any of us- look at their results and then go back home to produce MODELS or EXHIBITS to explain the behavior. The problem is that nowadays, the behavior is explained IRRATIONALLY. Without a shape (i.e. boundary, architecture, form) there is NOTHING to contact, NOTHING to interact with. Objects must have shape; concepts have no shape, and concepts do not perform actions, as I have already established. Interaction, mediation, influence... are all concepts which embody a surface to surface contact between two or more objects. Without contact- there's no interaction. Any hypothesis involving "an actor" with no shape and no size is irrational. 

I don't understand this rant against evidence, but will ignore it, as I think I don't need to untangle this one to maintain my position.

 

" A drone helicopter is an object that spins wings (pushing a rotor to turn) and these wings create a difference of pressure in the air around them that result in the object moving up against gravity, powered by its own engine and energy."

 

I already ammended my definition to "natural object", which was my mistake and did not represent the rational definition that was already provided in the article originally posted. That excludes the drone copter from being alive.

 

Why the natural object clause? What is a natural object? Living stuff is “Natural” and also creates stuff that move against gravity; we call them offspring. We humans create some other stuff that also moves against gravity and is not offspring. The difference is that these are not a continuation of the self-sustaining chemical processes of self-replication that we call alive; so drone helicopters are not alive, but not because they are “non-Natural” (whatever that is). No need to introduce this natural/non-natural irrational distinction, especially when we are approaching the point in our technology where we will create self-replicating self-sustaining chemical reactions protected under a cell membrane that will be every bit as alive as any other kind of cell.

 

"An ice cube is an object that pushes water aside when it crystallizes, creating a difference in specific weight or weight-to-volume ratio, resulting in the object moving up against gravity, powered by the energy states in the H2O atoms that compose it; its own energy."

 

The motion of an ice cube is entirely resultant from chemical interactions between water molecules which is dependent upon the environment of the water. By definition, a living object generates motion on it's own independent of it's environment.

 

In the case of the ice cube and your definition, if you can describe the motion of the ice cube as resulting from the “actions” of objects in its environment, then these objects must be the ones alive. How about if the environment prevents motion (like a woman tied down)? Is something formerly living and then prevented from moving against gravity dead?
There is movement against gravity and something must be causing it (as you require that only objects exist). Whichever is responsible for this motion is the one alive? So, if an object causes the motion of another, which is the one living? Why? You can see how this leads us into an obscure path filled with contradictions.

 

"In this definition life is a process... Life (as a process) is matter and energy (chemicals) interacting in a specific way..."

 

This is entirely ambiguous. Sodium + vinegar is a chemical process. It involves chemicals acting in a specific way... are they alive? No! Your definition is ambiguous and allows for contradictions. 

 

This is a straw man as I’ve stated the requirements for a chemical process to be considered alive. This is not a valid rebuttal of my definition of Life.

 

 

"[dead fish] move up to the surface, must be considered alive."

 

Yes, and a balloon rises when you let it go. Do these things move themselves? NO! Please think more thoroughly about your statements before you post them. It's completely obvious that the fish is moved BY THE WATER and the balloon is moved BY THE ATMOSPHERE. They do not move on their own.

 

Again, is the river then alive? Is the atmosphere then alive? If not, why not? It would constitute an arbitrary distinction from what a cell does when its parts move inside it against gravity.

Look, it’s been fun for me, and I think it’s been a productive debate for others. I think we’re near the end of it, where you (or I, as it can still happen) concede or abandon. It’s definitively the climax now. What do you think?

 

[huttnedu]

 

"Whatever upward momentum the balloon gains is applied as downward momentum to the atmosphere. It is tiny amount, but it is equal by basic physics. A bird is the same way, the forces are equal." -RestoringGuy

 

This is pseudo-scientific math garble. "Momentum" and "energy" are just variables in your equation, NOT things in reality! A balloon does not GAIN ANYTHING called momentum in physical reality.

In REALITY, the balloon is PUSHED UPWARDS away from earth by the AIR which surrounds it. Period! 

Whereas, a BIRD in reality is PUSHED UPWARDS away from earth by IT'S WINGS. Air does not simply LIFT a bird the way it does the balloon, it requires the bird to perform actions of it's own against gravity.

Are you beginning to see the difference?

 

" I cannot see why a non-moving and/or weightless object drifting in zero gravity should automatically be non-living." -RestoringGuy

 

Nowhere is there "no gravity". All objects pull upon each other- when you wiggle your finger you pull the Andromeda Galaxy. Life indepedent motion against the pull of all other objects, i.e. gravity.

 

"For sure I cannot see why a bird and airplane have different movement with regard to the term "on it's own" -RestoringGuy

 

Is a plane assembled naturally by it's environment? Does a plane move around on it's own? Tell me how that's possible.

 

" If you would please consider the word Moving to include internal  metabolism or flow of nutrients or even information carriers, it would make more sense to me." -RestoringGuy

 

"internal metabolism, flow of nutrients, information carriers" all refer to MOTION of tiny chemicals. These may be processes occuring within a living object, but they are not themselves the process of living. Living = an object's self-induced motion against gravity. The definition of life PRECEDES metabolism. We need to understand what we mean by "alive" first because metabolism is the concept of chemical interactions within a LIVING object.

 

--------

 

"I think usefulness is all that matters when we are discussing conceptualization at higher levels/ranges of reality." -Victor

 

I don't think you understood me when I said that usefulness is a SUBJECTIVE term resolving to opinion. Your opinions don't matter when conceptualizing (i.e. relating) reality (i.e. objects with location) for the purposes of Science (explaning phenomena rationally). And LOL could you please name just a couple "levels" of reality for me? I think you've been reading too much Dante's Inferno.

 

"Reality is composed of matter and energy." -Victor

 

Reality is a term that either refers to an object or a concept. Since "matter" refers to objects and "energy" refers to concept (referring to how objects behave or act wrt each other) then you are proposing a DUALITY. A duality is when someone proposes that a word refers to BOTH an object and a concept. In normal speech, you may "Wave to your friend while riding a wave" (using wave as both an object and a concept), but if we wish to be rational (i.e. non-contradictory) then we cannot say it is both something (an object) and nothing (a concept). 

Also,

com·po·si·tion, synonym: STRUCTURE  

/ˌkämpəˈziSHən/

Noun

The nature of something's ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up.

The action of putting things together; formation or construction.

 

Only OBJECTS have a composition. Reality is the concept of all objects with location. "Reality" has no composition, only individual objects may.

 

"objects are just concepts" -Victor

 

This is to say that something is nothing, you're just contradicting yourself blatently.

 

"Now, an atom is not an object. You define Object as that which has shape. But physics has shown us that shape is not a valid concept. Shape refers to a geometrical description of the space occupied by the object, determined by its external boundary, but there is no external boundary in an atom." -Victor

 

Physics, like any other science, requires visualization of the mechanism at work in a theory. If you cannot even imagine (i.e. make an image, illustration, visualization of) your theory, then it is not objective and rational.

From Fatfist's new article:

"Shape: a term that relates what a boundary encloses from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)"

If an atom is not an object then you are saying it is a CONCEPT and therefore performs no actions whatsoever in reality.

Without a boundary (i.e. a shape), then there can be no physical interaction or relation to other objects of reality because there is NOTHING to relate!

 

"Consider spin or angular momentum of particles and symmetries." -Victor

 

Oddities such as EPR can be explained easily using the Rope Hypothesis, if you're interested I can provide you more information on that.

 

"In order to define existence, you then need to drop/abandon/don’t-hang-on-to the concept object and the idea of shape. Drop that. No need for it. It will just confuse you, or render your capacity to describe and predict reality futile and powerless in ranges other than those you can grab with your cumbersome hands." -Victor

 

My hands have nothing to do with imagining the objects in question. Illustration and visualization is the only OBJECTIVE criterion for presenting an object within a hypothesis for explanation of a theory. Objects are that which have shape, no matter how big or small- if it exists, it has shape. Confusion comes from the CONtradictory FUSion of object and concept within a single term. That's called reification or RELIGION and belongs in the Bible. "God is love," is no different from "light is a wave" or "electrons are 0D particles".  It tries to turn a concept into an object and thus cannot be visualized.

 

"Yes. Energy can compose a "thing", but we require it's aggregated into mass first. Energy can come together and give matter to where there was none. Energy can leave something and reduce its matter. It happens all the time everywhere. Matter and energy are interchangeable. So the concept "thing" is problematic." -Victor

 

DEFINE ENERGY and we will see whether or not it can compose (form, provide structure to) a thing. Since only objects can perform this function, you will find that energy cannot do the magic tricks you say it can.

 

"A good example of this is a nuclear power plant that takes Uranium 235, turns it into a Uranium 236 atom by hitting it with a Neutron, and breaks it down into Barium 141 and Krypton 92. There is mass missing there; but that mass was turned into energy making electrons “flow” through a wire." -Victor

 

Electricity and fission do not involve any magical creation of something from nothing. Both phenomena can be explained rationally using the Rope Hypothesis, whereas you propose irrational 0D electrons zipping down a copper line and shapeless energy suddenly aquiring shape from the void. When I get electricuted, the wire is not pelting me with a 0 dimensional CONCEPT. I am interacting with a real THING and somehow it hurts me.

 

"A hydrogen atom is a very specific concept representing a very specific thing," -Victor

 

Try again! A hydrogen atom cannot be a THING and also a RELATION between things(concept).

 

"I don't understand this rant against evidence" -Victor

 

LOL "rant". Good one, Vic. What didn't you understand specifically?

 

"Why the natural object clause? What is a natural object?" -Victor

 

I forgot to include it initially, "natural" is required to define alive in a manner that can be used consistently.

A natural object is assembled by gravity, inert chemical processes and interactions.

 

"We humans create some other stuff that also moves against gravity and is not offspring" -Victor

 

The difference between an airplane and a baby is that people don't decide to make babies. Having sex might be a decision, heck, even growing the kid in a lab might be your decision, but essentially, the process of that baby growing is 100% indepedent. Whether or not the fertilization will work, whether the baby will be healthy or die during the pregnancy, all depends on the natural interaction between sperm and egg and has nothing to do with your decisions.

 

" “non-Natural” (whatever that is)" -Victor

 

Something artificial is something that a human decided to assemble. It has a purpose.

 

" if you can describe the motion of the ice cube as resulting from the “actions” of objects in its environment, then these objects must be the ones alive." -Victor

 

No, the atoms of the liquid are smaller and move more freely and it slides it's way under the cube, pushing it upwards. Nothing is alive here. It's all just physics.

 

". How about if the environment prevents motion (like a woman tied down)?" -Victor

 

The woman is still breathing and her heart is still beating, both phenomena can be described as natural, self-induced motion against gravity.

 

"There is movement against gravity and something must be causing it (as you require that only objects exist). Whichever is responsible for this motion is the one alive? " -Victor

 

There is motion against gravity, sure, but it is not achieved by a single object indepedently. A fish swimming to the top of a tank to get food is qualitatively different from an ice cube floating to the top, that difference is the fishes' independence of motion.

 

"So, if an object causes the motion of another, which is the one living? Why? You can see how this leads us into an obscure path filled with contradictions." -Victor

 

You see why those questions are misguided now?

 

"This is a straw man as I’ve stated the requirements for a chemical process to be considered alive. This is not a valid rebuttal of my definition of Life." -Victor

 

Nope, you've simply given an arbitrary label of metabolic processes and nutrient flow to the concept of a chemical process and you call it "alive". Reminds me of Frankenstein! Living objects may have metabolic processes and nutrient flows, but the concept of ALIVE is distinct from those and more fundamental.

 

"Again, is the river then alive? Is the atmosphere then alive? If not, why not? It would constitute an arbitrary distinction from what a cell does when its parts move inside it against gravity." -Victor

 

The river and atmosphere's motion is entirely dependent upon gravity and other inert interactions such as the spin of the earth. They do not move themselves against gravity.

 

"Look, it’s been fun for me, and I think it’s been a productive debate for others. I think we’re near the end of it, where you (or I, as it can still happen) concede or abandon. It’s definitively the climax now. What do you think?" -Victor

 

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I think that I have thoroughly addressed all of your questions and demonstrated why your definitions and arguments are contradictory. 

If we don't agree at this point then let's just call it quits.

 

[RestoringGuy]

Kind of harsh.  You write like there is no need to negotiate meaning.

You suggest nothing happens "on it's own" except naturally by it's environment.  I don't get that.  You seem to say that motion includes an object's origin, not just continued motion.   You say the plane is nonliving because it is not assembled by "its" environment.  But human beings are part of its environment.  Forget that fact, and let's suppose humans can never be part of any environment.  What about certain hybrid animals/plants, artificial insemination,etc.?   Some of those may be considered "not assembled naturally".  How do you get around that?

[Spastic Ink]

"hybrid animals/plants, artificial insemination,etc.?   Some of those may be considered "not assembled naturally""

 

These things aren't assembled artificially from their parts (atoms/molecules/cells) like a robot is assembled by humans. Nature does all the work.

[RestoringGuy]

 

"hybrid animals/plants, artificial insemination,etc.?   Some of those may be considered "not assembled naturally""

 

These things aren't assembled artificially from their parts (atoms/molecules/cells) like a robot is assembled by humans. Nature does all the work.

 

Is a bird's nest assembled by nature?  So what makes a volcano non-living?

[fingolfin]

 

DEFINE ENERGY and we will see whether or not it can compose (form, provide structure to) a thing. Since only objects can perform this function, you will find that energy cannot do the magic tricks you say it can.

 

Exactly, there's no such thing as energy. Energy is a word sophists use when they can't explain nature rationally (i.e. with physical objects).

[Spastic Ink]

 

“Is a bird's nest
assembled by nature?”

 

An artificial object is a second-hand
object, one made by a living entity, usually for a specific purpose rather than
as a byproduct of its internal metabolic/physiological processes. Nests, houses
and phones are artificial objects.

 

 

“So what makes a volcano non-living?”

 

What do you mean by
living? When you are able to define the term, take its context opposite and you’ve answered
your own question. If you can categorize a volcano as living, then we can both
go to the Census Bureau and convince them to include volcanoes as living
citizens of the state. Let's hope they will put them to work to pay their fair share of taxes and help out the economy.

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

 

An artificial object is a second-hand
object, one made by a living entity, usually for a specific purpose rather than
as a byproduct of its internal metabolic/physiological processes. Nests, houses
and phones are artificial objects.

 

Problem is, in order to distinguish living/non-living we must now distinguish natural/artificial.  And to know what is artificial we must know whether it is a byproduct of a living thing.  We have a circular reference. 

 

[Spastic Ink]

 

“And to know what isartificial we must know whether it is a byproduct of a living thing”

 

I don’t see the terms artificial & living as part of the definition of living. Are you reading the samedefinition on page 1?

 

“We have a circularreference.”

 

No, a circular ref is of the form: A is defined as “B and Cand A”.  The word to be defined needs tobe invoked in the definition itself.

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

 

“And to know what is
artificial we must know whether it is a byproduct of a living thing”

 

I don’t see the terms artificial & living as part of the definition of living. Are you reading the same
definition on page 1?

 

“We have a circular
reference.”

No, a circular ref is of the form: A is defined as “B and C
and A”.  The word to be defined needs to
be invoked in the definition itself.

 

 

It was proposed that artificial makes a difference and makes something "not alive" (even if it has metabolism and cells and so on).  An airplane made of wood is not alive because it is artificial byproduct.  But what is artificial, if not arising from a lifeform?  So natural process leads to life, and life defines what we call natural.  It is circular definition.  In order to call something alive, we must consider whether it grew "naturally".  To call something natural, we must consider whether a lifeform built it.  I do not agree with ANY of these definitions, I only point out the flaw in the sort of thinking that definition of "life" depends on being "naturally grown" and somehow robots can be ruled out on that particular basis.

[Victor]

I don't have time now to go into  another long rebuttal, but notice that if four billions years or so an alien Von Newman probe reached this planet and released a self-replication-inducing molecular system (a factory of cells), then, by this silly definition of life, none of us is alive. In the case this probe was a human probe coming from the future, then we have a big problem.

[Spastic Ink]

“So natural
process leads to life, and life defines what we call natural.  It is
circular definition.”

 

Already addressed above. You
are obviously looking at some other definition of life. You also don’t understand
what a circular definition is. The definition of life defines the meaning of
the term life, not the meaning of the term natural. You don’t seem to
understand what a definition is.

 

“In order to call something
alive, we must consider whether it grew "naturally"

 

The ability to grow has nothing to do with the definition of life.

 

“To call something natural,
we must consider whether a lifeform built it.”

 

I don’t know where you
pulled that line from, but it certainly wasn’t anywhere in this thread.

A natural object is defined as one forged by the
environment. Where do you see the phrase “lifeform
built it” in the definition of natural?

 

“I do not agree with ANY of
these definitions”

 

Nobody really cares what you
agree with. Definitions stand on their own and aren’t subject to agreement, for
if they were, all one has to do is recruit more people to agree with a definition
than you can recruit to disagree with it. We can certainly payout people and buy definitions if what you say is the case. So your agreement/disagreement emotional
plea is utterly laughable.

[Spastic Ink]

 

I don't have time now to go into  another long rebuttal, but notice that if four billions years or so an alien Von Newman probe reached this planet and released a self-replication-inducing molecular system (a factory of cells), then, by this silly definition of life, none of us is alive. In the case this probe was a human probe coming from the future, then we have a big problem.

 

 

“a
self-replication-inducing molecular system (a factory of cells)”

 

It’s called
abiogenesis. All living entities are made up of atoms. There was no maker who
used tweezers to pick up individual atoms and painstakingly assemble humans.

 

“then, by this silly
definition of life, none of us is alive.”

 

No, you obviously
didn’t read the definition. 

[Victor]

Hi Spastic.

I've written a great deal on this thread. I've defended a definition and shown the contradictions and weaknesses of the proposed one that I think you're supporting. Will you address my points?

[Victor]

 

Alright. Let’s take one more chop at it []

"I think usefulness is all that matters when we are discussing conceptualization at higher levels/ranges of reality." -Victor

“I don't think you understood me when I said that usefulness is a SUBJECTIVE term resolving to opinion. Your opinions don't matter when conceptualizing (i.e. relating) reality (i.e. objects with location) for the purposes of Science (explaning phenomena rationally). And LOL could you please name just a couple "levels" of reality for me? I think you've been reading too much Dante's Inferno.”

[]  A man is fired from his job. My neighbor just lost the means to sustain his family. Juan is a failure. The contract for the exchange of labor for monetary retribution between “a firm” and an individual is unilaterally terminated. A human has changed his daily routine. All descriptions of the same event reveal different integration levels of reality.

Please spare me the quotes here.

What I’m saying is that Objects don’t exist by themselves. What exist is only matter and energy (ultimately energy). The universe is a stage where mater and energy interact. These interactions are what we call events. When we humans identify and integrate reality into conceptualizations, and describe the properties of objects and phenomena, what we’re really doing is looking at events where matter and energy interact.
Now, objects are useful integrations/conceptualizations and they’re fun []. Don’t ditch them just yet. But if we want to be accurate or do meaningful science, even when we don’t know or comprehend why or how, we must be aware that it’s fine to talk about objects when our ranges are near our daily experience, but when we approach nanometers and below, we must speak in the quantum physics language.
It’s like some huge alien wanted to describe the universe in terms of stars. And at a big enough range this might be useful and even feel true, but it wouldn’t be accurate.

The universe is not composed of objects interacting. The universe, reality, is made up of matter and energy interacting.

Now, this should not derail our debate about the nature of life. Cells are big enough to be dealt with as objects without much trouble. I think we went down this path unnecessarily.
Anyway…

“Physics, like any other science, requires visualization of the mechanism at work in a theory. If you cannot even imagine (i.e. make an image, illustration, visualization of) your theory, then it is not objective and rational.”

Objective and rational does not mean that you can imagine it. Quantum physics is both objective and rational. It’s just non-intuitive. Our imagination is not the standard of truth. Coherence or lack of contradiction (reason) and external verification (evidence) is.

You keep bringing this Rope Hypothesis. I went and watched that video you linked in an earlier post. It’s interesting, and I think it’s a great way to visualize (imagine) what goes on between particles and electro-magnetic forces. But it’s just that, a way to visualize. There are no actual ropes down there. Ropes are a specific thing with specific properties. What physics finds down there is something remarkably different from ropes. They’re called lines of force and their properties are way too weird and unique for us to be able to reduce them to what is conveniently relatable to our experience at a macro-level. For example, ropes don’t go through solids unaffected. But electro-magnetic lines of force “flow” through non-metallic objects unaltered.

“My hands have nothing to do with imagining the objects in question. Illustration and visualization is the only OBJECTIVE criterion for presenting an object within a hypothesis for explanation of a theory. Objects are that which have shape, no matter how big or small- if it exists, it has shape. Confusion comes from the CONtradictory FUSion of object and concept within a single term. That's called reification or RELIGION and belongs in the Bible. "God is love," is no different from "light is a wave" or "electrons are 0D particles".  It tries to turn a concept into an object and thus cannot be visualized.”

Man, I’m trying to follow here. I think you have some beef with physics because they keep explaining stuff through non-intuitive models and it triggers some alarms in you, and you end up equating physics with Catholicism. But you’re ignoring that what physicists do is work to describe, predict, model and control reality. The models they must form don’t need to comply with our comprehension. It’s the other way around.

DEFINE ENERGY and we will see whether or not it can compose (form, provide structure to) a thing. Since only objects can perform this function, you will find that energy cannot do the magic tricks you say it can.

ENERGY is an indirect quantity observed by its effect on matter, usually defined by how much an amount of mass changes its position, speed, temperature, mass, or some other property. My take is that, like many other fundamental properties of the universe (time, space, light, leptons, spin, mass, etc.), scientists don’t know what it is, but they have very good models of how it works. I would expect that how stuff works and relates to everything else in the universe should be sufficient to define something, but we keep striving to form an independent and comprehensive identity and definition for these properties of the universe, and that is though.

“Electricity and fission do not involve any magical creation of something from nothing. Both phenomena can be explained rationally using the Rope Hypothesis, whereas you propose irrational 0D electrons zipping down a copper line and shapeless energy suddenly aquiring shape from the void. When I get electricuted, the wire is not pelting me with a 0 dimensional CONCEPT. I am interacting with a real THING and somehow it hurts me.”

Oh it’s real alright; just not tiny ropes []

" if you can describe the motion of the ice cube as resulting from the “actions” of objects in its environment, then these objects must be the ones alive." -Victor
No, the atoms of the liquid are smaller and move more freely and it slides it's way under the cube, pushing it upwards. Nothing is alive here. It's all just physics.

The atoms in oil are huge, and still stuff float on oil. Water vapor molecules form bubbles in boiling water. Atoms are the same size yet the vapor leaps up and blow out into the air. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about here.

“Nope, you've simply given an arbitrary label of metabolic processes and nutrient flow to the concept of a chemical process and you call it "alive". Reminds me of Frankenstein! Living objects may have metabolic processes and nutrient flows, but the concept of ALIVE is distinct from those and more fundamental.”

It’s not arbitrary. It’s descriptive/predictive based on observation and experimentation, with awesome predictive power, without contradictions and economically expressed. It even proposes models for how life began in the first place and can help us identify potential for life in other worlds.  It helps us in figuring out how to replicate life artificially.

What good does your definition make? What can I say about anything thanks to your definition?

If I encounter something moving against gravity, I cannot say it is alive until I’ve eliminated this something was not the produce of some lab?

So, stuff move against gravity. Some move “independently” and at the same time are not man-made, that’s what’s alive. Alright, what does it tell me about how does life come about? How does it help me replicate life? How does it help me understand what environments are favorable to live and what environments are challenging?

If something moves more, does it mean it’s more alive? A more resilient organism is then the one with better/stronger/longer movement, rather than the one that replicates its genetic code and maintains its chemical reactions under more varied and extreme conditions?

Given two choices of food to a living organism, which one is more favorable to life? Wheals or wings to move faster/farther/better; or chemical compounds used to re-construct proteins that make up a cellular membrane that protects internal genetic replication?

Radioactivity energizes objects. It can make stuff move. Why is it that life is so particularly vulnerable to this form of energy?

If organisms pass along genetic adaptations to their offspring, and there’s an inherent preference for adaptations favorable to life (we call this natural selection), will we see a preference then for adaptations that improve movement, or adaptations that improve genetic replication (intra-cellular self-sustained chemical reactions)?

Are non-natural objects that move competing with natural objects that move?

My definition can answer all of this easily.

[RestoringGuy]

Nobody really cares what you
agree with. Definitions stand on their own and aren’t subject to agreement, for
if they were, all one has to do is recruit more people to agree with a definition
than you can recruit to disagree with it. We can certainly payout people and buy definitions if what you say is the case. So your agreement/disagreement emotional
plea is utterly laughable.

Indeed.  But it makes no sense to put forward a definition, watch somebody state something that meets the definition, and then watch people say "but it doesn't do X so it doesn't qualify" even though X was never remotely mentioned in the original definition.  That did happen in this thread.  Whether something moves against gravity "on it's own" says nothing about "how it was built".

What is agreeable is all that matters because definitions are subjective constructions.

 

[Livemike]

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

No, a cell is not necessarily resisting gravity just because it's alive.  Unless it's actively changing it's movement from what it would otherwise be given gravity (and not all living cells can even do that!) it's not resisting gravity.  Now go away you living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[RestoringGuy]

It would seem by using words like "resisting" we could be already preloading a decision whether something is alive.  I could say a dead leaf fallen on the ground can be blown by the wind, and move upward against gravity.  Is it resisting gravity?  Well the answer is yes if you take gravity at face value and admit sometimes other forces work against it.  The leaf and the rest of the Earth move away from each other.  But the answer is no if you intend to word "resistance" to apply only to living things.

Now I know some will say "ah, but the leaf was blown and that is external force -- the dead leaf did not move on its own".  But all forces of motion are external, because without recoil on the Earth as a body, and traction on the ground on the soles of the shoes, we could do nothing but kick our feet in space and never move.  Nothing can ever move "on its own".  Motion always has a reaction on a secondary body just as Newton's laws tell us.  There is no such thing as one body going off into motion all by itself.  It has to push,pull, or grip its environment and modify the environment in the process.  The idea of using "motion" to define life seems inconsistent and filled with circular reference.

[Spastic Ink]

"It would seem by using words like "resisting"

 

I didn't see this term resisting in the definition of alive. You are attacking a strawman, not the definition presented in this thread. It's very easy to kill strawmen instead of arguments.

 

"we could do nothing but kick our feet in space and never move"

 

But if you kick your feet, you are certainly moving. Elementary. You contradicted yourself.

 

"Nothing can ever move "on its own"

 

I just walked to work. I moved on my own. Try it sometime instead of taking the tram. But even if you take the tram, you still moved on your own to board the tram, among other motions you did while inside the tram. That's quite the predicament you're in.

 

"The idea of using "motion" to define life seems inconsistent and filled with circular reference."

 

You clearly haven't shown that. And what do you mean by "life"? Cuz if you can't tell us, then your statement is meaningless.

 

[RestoringGuy]

I didn't see this term resisting in the definition of alive. You are attacking a strawman, not the definition presented in this thread. It's very easy to kill strawmen instead of arguments.

But if you kick your feet, you are certainly moving. Elementary. You contradicted yourself.

You missed my point.  Resisting was used as a clarifying word in the discussion. Yes, if you claim kicking your feet while your center of mass is fixed in space constitutes "moving", then by that argument all matter is moving because of thermodynamics of atomic motion.  That changes the idea of motion to include subsystems.  You have a choice: allow "moving" to include the parts, or else only to describe the whole (center of mass) as I intend.  If it is the former, then it is inescapable that all matter is alive if you believe the definitions given here.  All matter has microscopic parts that move on their own.  Does that not seem correct?

I just walked to work. I moved on my own. Try it sometime instead of taking the tram. But even if you take the tram, you still moved on your own to board the tram, among other motions you did while inside the tram. That's quite the predicament you're in.

No, not on your own.  You also kicked a pebble on the ground.  Every step you take propels the earth in the opposite direction.  This is conservation of momentum.  The effect is tiny but you know it's true.  You cannot move "on your own" without moving something else, and then you didn't do it "on your own" but with traction and force-assistance of nearby matter. 

Imagine you are alone in space, and then fart in space  --- you and your fart move in opposite directions.  So your fart gas now adds a secondary motion and there is not just one thing (you) moving "on your own".  There are two things moving, you and some fart gas half a mile away.  I know this is tedious, but it is unavoidable if crazy ambiguous words like "own" are used in a scientific definition.  What is something "on it's own"?  I have never heard such a phrase in any of my three dozen physics classes.  Is there some apparatus which can distinguish matter that moves "on it's own" and matter that does not?  There is nothing strawman here.  I didn't present this idea, but I know there is some refinement needed, and odd implications that are difficult to reconcile.

You clearly haven't shown that. And what do you mean by "life"? Cuz if you can't tell us, then your statement is meaningless.

You are correct.  I believe definition of life should include unstable metabolism, and I doubt simple physics concepts are specific enough.  My feeling is life should allow some inclusion of robots and computer simulations, and it is only the behavior that should dictate whether life is present..  The origin of a thing (artificial or natural), and whether it has adequate (external) propulsion systems does not seem easy to include.  I will try this definition:  Life is that which reacts in unpredictable ways, and through that process of unpredictable reaction it can recognize patterns of behavior that improve its chances of continuing to exist.

It is the reaction that is the "identity" of life, so if I am totally eaten by parasites I am now "dead".   My continued motion through space does not qualify me as "alive".  By "recognize" I mean there is a set of external conditions that are sensed, and there is a statistical correlation between some internal indicator (inside its metabolism) and the external stimuli.  The internal indicator guides the thing what to do, but does not require it.  Just to clarify, by "continuing to exist" I mean there is a continued reaction in this specific statistical way.  That clarification allows the word "death" to cover replacement of living matter by some other organism that consumes it.

 

[Spastic Ink]

“Resisting was used as
a clarifying word in the discussion.”

 

Using out of context
terms having nothing to do with the definition presented and attempting to
clarify them in your own mind to make an out of context point, is a classic
strawman. We need to stick with what is presented and in context.

 

 

“then it is
inescapable that all matter is alive”

 

This was the
definition supplied from the article:

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

 

When we test your
claim that all matter is alive, we see that the cup on the table is not moving
by itself. Sit there and wait for it to move by itself. It will never do so.
Only another object can move it. Your claim obviously fails.

 

 

“All matter has
microscopic parts that move on their own.”

 

Let’s test this
claim. Take a hammer and smash the cup to dust. None of those parts move on
their own. They can only move when another object either pulls or pushes them
by various physical means, be it direct contact, gravity, magnetism,
ionization, etc. We don’t see cups and their parts walking down the street or
sprouting from the soil. This shouldn’t be news to anyone.

 

 

“No, not on your
own.  You also kicked a pebble on the ground.”

 

When you kicked or
performed any action, it was you who did it on your own. It wasn’t a ghost or
any other object that grabbed your foot and moved it on your behalf to make it kick
that pebble. Your statement is contradictory as any action you perform, you
perform on your own unless another entity forced you to perform it.

 

 

“you didn't do it
"on your own" but with traction and force-assistance of nearby matter”

 

So if one is floating
in outer space before their air supply runs out and dies, they cannot move
their arm or foot because there isn’t a pavement with traction out there? Obviously,
when they die they can’t move any limb as they are no longer alive. Again, your
statement is contradictory.

 

 

“your fart gas now
adds a secondary motion and there is not just one thing (you) moving "on
your own".  There are two things moving, you and some fart gas half a
mile away.”

 

The fart or ball you
threw is not moving on its own. That entity was pushed by another object, ie.
you. It is you who moved on your own and can move any way you like whereas the
fart or ball cannot except in the direction it was pushed, until influenced by
another entity. You are alive, the ball isn’t.

 

 

“My continued motion
through space does not qualify me as "alive".”

 

Of course. A dead
body in a grave moves as the Earth moves around the Sun. Motion alone is not a
criteria for being alive. Again, the ball moves because it was either pushed or
pulled by another object, not because the ball did it on its own. The ball is
not alive. You are alive because you are a natural entity moving on your own
against the gravitational pull of all objects. You can fight the pull of the
Earth and the Sun by merely moving a limb or batting an eye lash. A ball cannot
do that.

 

 

“Life is that
which reacts in unpredictable ways, and through that process of unpredictable
reaction it can recognize patterns of behavior that improve its chances of
continuing to exist.”

 

Your definition is observer dependent. It depends on another living
entity that should not be able to predict how said living entity can react. It invokes
another living entity to define what a living entity is. This is a good example
of a circular definition.

 

And even still, if one can predict how it reacts, then said entity is
not alive. For example, before we stab someone in the heart and slice through
it, all we need to do is predict that they will collapse to the ground and die.
And if we run this experiment and our prediction comes to fruition, then it
automatically contradicts your definition because it concludes that this person
was not alive before we stabbed him. It’s self-refuting. What do you predict
will happen if we run this experiment on someone?

[RestoringGuy]

Spastic Ink, you seem to take this all too seriously.   When you push on a ball, the shape of the ball distorts and the elasticity of the ball pushes on you with equal impulse.   My definition is not great either, but i think it is less vague.

[Guest darkskyabove]

No offense to any, but this thread has started to resemble a venue to practice using the English language to mean whatever one wants.

What is the premise? What is the evidence? What is the conclusion?

Can anyone state a simple definition of what life is, without resorting to mental gymnastics? And without linking to obscure websites.

More importantly, can anyone admit that we might not know for sure? Oh, wait, I just did!

 

[Spastic Ink]

Well then let’s not take anything seriously. Let’s agreethat everybody is correct and everything is true. That includes the details of allahand jesus. Besides, it’s better to make love instead of war. I’m perfectly fine withthat.

 

 

And before you push that ball and talk about elasticity,shape and what not, you had better be alive. A dead man can’t push anything byhimself. He needs another person to grab his cold dead hand and push on hisbehalf. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

So, instead of addressing any of my questions, you resort to a tantrum.

What is the premise? What is the evidence? What is the conclusion?

The elastic ball is in your court. Can you answer any of these three, simple, questions? Suggestion: don't assume that others have no references to dispute irrational claims.

[RestoringGuy]

Thank you for the voice of rationality. The original premise was that things moving against gravity constitute being alive.  I take "moving" to mean the overall center of mass is moving, not just itty bitty subatomic parts (everything has moving parts at small enough scale).  This was augmented with the following observations:

1.  The living things must move "on their own".

2.  The living things must not be artificial constructs.

3.  The living things must be made of cells.

4.  Living things react unpredictably and environment provides metabolic indicators needed to maintain this reaction.

#4 is my advice I humbly submit for critique.  To me, #1 is vague and meaningless, #2 is arbitrary and circular (artificial means byproduct of a lifeform, and lifeform means non-artificial), and #3 seems at least easier to prove but only if we restrict life to multicellular.  Comments?

[Spastic Ink]

“The original premise
was that things moving against gravity constitute being alive.”

 

Sorry, but you didn’t
have that discussion with me. That’s not the definition of alive I copy/pasted a few comments ago.

 

 

“4.  Living things react
unpredictably and environment provides metabolic indicators needed to maintain
this reaction. #4 is my advice I humbly submit for critique.”

 

Your definition is
observer dependent. It depends on another living entity that should not be able
to “predict” how said living entity can react. It invokes another living entity
to define what a living entity is. It is saying that living thing is one which
requires another living thing to assess unpredictability. This is a fine
example of a circular definition.

Even putting this circularity
aside, if one can predict how it reacts, then said entity is not alive. For
example, before we stab someone in the heart and slice through it, all we need
to do is predict that they will collapse to the ground and die. And if we run
this experiment and our prediction comes to fruition, then it automatically
contradicts your definition because it concludes that this person was not alive
before we stabbed him. It’s a self-refuting definition.

 

But ultimately, you are
basing your definition on an action – react. The entity in question must move
by itself against gravity to “react” and be deemed alive. This is your dependency.
So it’s obvious that you cannot escape the definition provided by the article
no matter how much you complain that you disagree with it for personal reasons.
All you are doing is just trying to add more redundant attributes or
descriptions to the definition on top of what was provided by the article.

  

 

“1.  The living things must
move "on their own". To me, #1 is vague and meaningless”

 

You haven’t shown that. In fact, you’ve obviously
used it in your definition with the term “react” as explained above. So it’s
evidently meaningful to you, otherwise you wouldn’t use a single verb/action in
your definition of a living thing.

 

 

“2.  The living things must not be
artificial constructs. #2 is arbitrary and circular (artificial means
byproduct of a lifeform, and lifeform means non-artificial)”

 

The term “artificial” is again your strawman
attempt as it is not part of the definition provided. I addressed this specific
issue for you previously and you had no argument against it. Simply ignoring my response and repeating what you posted is not
an argument.

 

 

“The living things must be made of cells.”

 

 

A cell is already alive. So such a statement is
circular because you are saying a living thing must be made up
of living things. 

[RestoringGuy]

“4.  Living things react
unpredictably and environment provides metabolic indicators needed to maintain
this reaction. #4 is my advice I humbly submit for critique.”

 Your definition is
observer dependent. It depends on another living entity that should not be able
to “predict” how said living entity can react. It invokes another living entity
to define what a living entity is. It is saying that living thing is one which
requires another living thing to assess unpredictability. This is a fine
example of a circular definition.

Thank you for explaining.  You assume the prediction must be realized and observed.  I suggest inclusion of prediction by any physically-possible means, even if the prediction is made by a nonliving entity (a mechanical tool).  Indeed if I qualified "living entity" had to do the prediction, my definition is quite circular.  But I do not make that assertion.

if one can predict how it reacts, then said entity is not alive. For
example, before we stab someone in the heart and slice through it, all we need
to do is predict that they will collapse to the ground and die. And if we run
this experiment and our prediction comes to fruition, then it automatically
contradicts your definition because it concludes that this person was not alive
before we stabbed him. It’s a self-refuting definition.

 I claim the predictable behavior is one of the behaviors a living being must possess.  It is not the full extent of all behaviors it is allowed to possess.

But ultimately, you are
basing your definition on an action – react. The entity in question must move
by itself against gravity to “react” and be deemed alive. This is your dependency.
So it’s obvious that you cannot escape the definition provided by the article
no matter how much you complain that you disagree with it for personal reasons.
All you are doing is just trying to add more redundant attributes or
descriptions to the definition on top of what was provided by the article.

That is not all it does.  It allows some self-propelled machines to be living, and other machines to be non-living.  It holds whether or not gravity is the universal force involved.

 

“1.  The living things must
move "on their own". To me, #1 is vague and meaningless”

 You haven’t shown that. In fact, you’ve obviously
used it in your definition with the term “react” as explained above. So it’s
evidently meaningful to you, otherwise you wouldn’t use a single verb/action in
your definition of a living thing.

Perhaps.  But I do not think something can move "on its own".  If there are 12 lightbulbs, and one bulb lights up on its own, then either I mean "the 11 other bulbs do not light up" (light bulb #1 is the only one that lights), or I mean "the lightbulb has an internal power source" (no external connection exists).  So when something moves on its own, what do you mean?  That thing moves and nothing else does?  Or the thing has no contact whatsoever with other objects and is somehow able to move anyway?  Or is it some third definition that I have not yet learned?  These questions I think demonstrate the idea is vague.

“2.  The living things must not be
artificial constructs. #2 is arbitrary and circular (artificial means
byproduct of a lifeform, and lifeform means non-artificial)”

The term “artificial” is again your strawman
attempt as it is not part of the definition provided. I addressed this specific
issue for you previously and you had no argument against it. Simply ignoring my response and repeating what you posted is not
an argument.

OK then explain this to me please.  What about a drone aircraft makes it not alive?

 

“The living things must be made of cells.”

 A cell is already alive. So such a statement is
circular because you are saying a living thing must be made up
of living things. 

 

That is obvious if you accept cells must be alive.  I would argue wood is made of cells, but wood is dead.  I only suggest cells do not have to be alive in order for them to be recognizable as cells.  Cells are maybe just a really cool pattern of arranging atoms.  So if somebody includes cells in their definition of life, the definition is not necessarily circular.  Let's say by some mathematical transform, pattern repetition is objectively shown.  You could include that in a definition and not cause a contradiction.  I don't include it in my definition of life, but it seems to be a viable idea.

[Spastic Ink]

“the prediction is
made by a nonliving entity (a mechanical tool).  Indeed if I qualified "living
entity" had to do the prediction, my definition is quite circular.”

 

All tools are built and
deterministically programmed by living entities for a specific purpose. And you
don’t need to qualify this by a “living entity” since tools can only be made by
living entities. So of course this is circular as it entails a living entity to
deterministically instruct how the prediction should proceed.

 

 

“I claim the
predictable behavior is one of
the behaviors a living being
must possess.”

 

The fact of the
matter is that we can predict that a man whose heart is cut will collapse and
die. This is a prediction which according to your definition makes the man not
alive before he was stabbed. And this simple test refutes your definition.

 

 

“That is not all it
does”

 

What it “does” is an
action by itself against gravity. It doesn’t matter if it “does” one or many
actions. It does them by itself and against gravity. So you are certainly using
this criteria (which you claim is vague without justification) in your own
definition of living. Isn’t that ironic? Perhaps you didn’t realize it
before and that’s ok. But I have pointed it out for you. It’s obvious.

 

 

“ So when something moves on its own,
what do you mean?”

 

Just that. That it
moves on its own without another object pushing or pulling it, as I said
several times before. What is so extremely difficult to understand about “moving
by itself”?

For example, you walk
on your own without me having to grab your legs and move them for you and force
you to take your steps, do you not? Simple. Nothing vague about it. If you
disagree, then please tell me what other object is grabbing your legs and
moving them for you so that you can walk to work. I would certainly like to
know if someone or something (perhaps a ghost) is grabbing my legs without my
knowledge, making walking motions with them and forcing me to go to work.
Perhaps my creditors?

 

 

“I do not think
something can move "on its own".”

 

For nonliving things,
sure. All living things move on their own. In fact, you cannot give any example
of a living thing that cannot move on its own.

 

 

“That is obvious if
you accept cells must be alive.  I would argue wood is made of cells, but
wood is dead.”

 

There are living
cells and dead ones (that lived once), just as there are living people and dead
people. That tree was once alive but the wood and its cells lying on the ground
are now dead. So? How does that kill the definition presented here?

 

 

“I only suggest cells
do not have to be alive”

 

Of course they don’t.
And such cells cannot be classified as living. But they were certainly alive
once. Now they are dead. The point is: the cell itself is not a criterion for “living”
because a living cell is not made up of other cells. So that’s where it fails.
Such a definition of “living” cannot be ascribed to a cell since it doesn’t
consist of other cells as per your requirement. Adding a clause with the word
cell to the definition is contradictory at best.

 

 

“What about a drone
aircraft makes it not alive?”

 

I just ran it through
the definition presented and it makes sense: Living is a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself
against the gravitational pull from all the other objects

 

Drone aircrafts
aren’t natural objects. We don’t call something alive just because it moves. If
that were the case, then every single object in the universe would be alive. Everything
moves.

 

Some will ask: why
don’t we just label everything alive and be done with it? I mean, we don’t have
to concern ourselves with whether that man in the morgue is living or dead,
right? Let’s just say he’s alive and even the insurance company will be happy as
they don’t have to pay out that policy. Well, if it makes them happy we can all
agree to this universal irrationality. As long as they’re happy in the end,
that’s all that matters.