Page 6 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

06 Jul 2010, 12:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Two things characterize living things:

1. They replicate

replication is not a fundamental necessity of life.

the very first life that existed in the universe after the big bang was not borne of a predecessor.
if it had died without replication, then it would still have been a life. the only life that ever was most possibly


ruveyn wrote:
2. They have built in homeostatic controls (basically negative feedback loops) to maintain their dynamic state far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. That is why warm-bloods like us maintain temperature (as long as we have fuel) and corpses cool off to the ambient temperature of the surroundings.

there are very many lives that are existent that are contained within bodies that are the same temperature as their surroundings.

it is a silly thing you say with your assertion.




ruveyn wrote:
By that definition it is possible for for humans to construct living things from non-living matter. This has not yet happened but there is no inherent violation of physical laws for such a thing to happen.


it is not the case that a human can cause an assembly of their design to have an urgency for self preservation. what you said makes no sense to me.

the spark of life is not able to be injected into any set of cobbled together atoms.

"will" is beyond matter. even if that will is not conscious.

humans can not build anything that is outside the world of matter.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jul 2010, 9:12 pm

b9 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

Two things characterize living things:

1. They replicate

replication is not a fundamental necessity of life.

the very first life that existed in the universe after the big bang was not borne of a predecessor.
if it had died without replication, then it would still have been a life. the only life that ever was most possibly


ruveyn wrote:
2. They have built in homeostatic controls (basically negative feedback loops) to maintain their dynamic state far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. That is why warm-bloods like us maintain temperature (as long as we have fuel) and corpses cool off to the ambient temperature of the surroundings.

there are very many lives that are existent that are contained within bodies that are the same temperature as their surroundings.

it is a silly thing you say with your assertion.




ruveyn wrote:
By that definition it is possible for for humans to construct living things from non-living matter. This has not yet happened but there is no inherent violation of physical laws for such a thing to happen.


it is not the case that a human can cause an assembly of their design to have an urgency for self preservation. what you said makes no sense to me.

the spark of life is not able to be injected into any set of cobbled together atoms.

"will" is beyond matter. even if that will is not conscious.

humans can not build anything that is outside the world of matter.


Your ignorance of far from equilibrium thermodynamics is astounding.

Also name one living thing that does not replicate (reproduce) its parts. It is replication that is the main difference between living stuff and non-living stuff.

ruveyn



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

07 Jul 2010, 5:31 am

ruveyn wrote:
Your ignorance of far from equilibrium thermodynamics is astounding.


i guess i shall take that as a compliment. i would not be "astounded" if i heard a thought from someone who did not know about "far from equilibrium thermodynamics" unless i credited them with the expectation that they did.

apart from that, i did not show an ignorance of "far from equilibrium thermodynamics".
you said :

ruveyn wrote:
(Two things characterize living things:)
2. They have built in homeostatic controls (basically negative feedback loops) to maintain their dynamic state far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. That is why warm-bloods like us maintain temperature (as long as we have fuel) and corpses cool off to the ambient temperature of the surroundings.


i read that as an assertion that all life has built in homeostasis.
i read that as that you mean that all life is "dynamic" (therefore actively divorced from equilibrium pertinent to their surrounding thermodynamic environment).

it has been speculated (among many other possibilities) that life on earth began as viruses rode to earth on comets or meteorites. that presumes that life can be preserved at absolute zero (0 kelvin). in that environment, there are no dynamics, as all molecular activity is dormant for ever with no "temperature" (infusion of energy).
there is complete equilibrium between all things at zero kelvin.

there is no agitation or transmission of energy at that absence of "temperature".

i am aware that there is no place in the material universe that is truly at 0 kelvin (the resonance from background radiation is atomically excitative albeit to an almost infinitessimal degree).

if life can be preserved in a suspended state on it's ride between the galaxies on a frozen rock, then is it life? or is it just the preserved potential for the reexplosion of activity that once again enters a dynamic state of "life" once some energy is infused?

corpses and dormant life are a universe apart because corpses have not the spark of preserved urgency that suspension of animation has.

on a much simpler level, i was saying that fish are the same temperature as the water in which they swim. there are frogs that hibernate in temperatures of - 30 (even though they do not freeze, it is not because of homeostasis. they are in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. they have some sort of glycemic saturation that lowers their freezing temperature).
i was just disagreeing with your seeming assertion that homeostasis is a crucial element of life.

ruveyn wrote:
(1. They replicate )
Also name one living thing that does not replicate (reproduce) its parts. It is replication that is the main difference between living stuff and non-living stuff.
ruveyn


"all things that replicate are living" does not equate to "all things that are living replicate"
like the statement "all mcdonalds in suffolk are redheads, therefore all redheads in suffolk are mcdonalds"

to be banal, i will say mules do not replicate. i know that is a poor and iimmature reply, but on another level i must say that life in the universe must have started somewhere.

the first living thing in the universe had no parents.

i am not very smart in the area of philosophy i am sorry. i should not have entered this thread.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

07 Jul 2010, 7:35 am

Alive: has a metabolism

Not alive: has no metabolism

In between: viruses and non-metabolizing forms of suspended life (ex. frozen and will start metabolizing once they thaw).

Crystals replicate but I wouldn't consider them alive since they have no metabolism. I have heard that some scientists speculate that the morph from not-alive to alive happened because of crystals. That the way they force molecules into an orderly progression became the template for genetic code, which is just molecules in an orderly progression that replicates.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

07 Jul 2010, 9:07 am

Janissy wrote:
Alive: has a metabolism

Not alive: has no metabolism

In between: viruses and non-metabolizing forms of suspended life (ex. frozen and will start metabolizing once they thaw).

Crystals replicate but I wouldn't consider them alive since they have no metabolism. I have heard that some scientists speculate that the morph from not-alive to alive happened because of crystals. That the way they force molecules into an orderly progression became the template for genetic code, which is just molecules in an orderly progression that replicates.


Life is a Meta bol ism topic

Good one.^^^^


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Jul 2010, 9:52 am

Janissy wrote:
Alive: has a metabolism

Not alive: has no metabolism

In between: viruses and non-metabolizing forms of suspended life (ex. frozen and will start metabolizing once they thaw).

Crystals replicate but I wouldn't consider them alive since they have no metabolism. I have heard that some scientists speculate that the morph from not-alive to alive happened because of crystals. That the way they force molecules into an orderly progression became the template for genetic code, which is just molecules in an orderly progression that replicates.


Crystals are half way to being alive. But they lack homeostatic control loops to maintain their low entropy state. No internal negative feedback control. They are driven by electromagnetic forces.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Jul 2010, 10:12 am

According to XTC, life begins at the hop.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vq1U8BKsEw[/youtube]


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

30 Jul 2010, 4:18 pm

As both the sperm and egg meet all the biological requirements to meet the definition of "life", it's obvious that life is present even BEFORE conception.

This hardly constitutes a "right" to parasitism on the part of the fetus.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

30 Jul 2010, 11:06 pm

SaNcheNuSS wrote:
She said "Conception". She means when the sperm and egg unite or whatever. Also, even when the brain begins functioning that doesn't mean it is alive to me. It is alive when the soul enters the child.





When is that exactly? :roll:


I think you religious/spiritual folks really ought to utilize secular arguments to defend your positions if you expect any non-religious/spiritual folks to take them seriously.


Please don't tell me that's impossible or unfair either as i've seen many devoutly religious people do just that.



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

30 Jul 2010, 11:20 pm

merrymadscientist wrote:
I wouldn't say that life 'begins' at conception, but rather that it continues - being initially just a composition of both parent's cells. At this stage it can no more survive independently than a virus can (and we don't strictly call a virus 'life') - it is dependent upon the mother and therefore is an extension of the mother (who is alive obviously).

Whether something is alive or not is a completely different question as to whether it constitutes a 'person' or not. Personhood starts with establishment of a nervous system, but is not complete until well into childhood (I imagine different ages in different people) when the child finally becomes self aware and aware of its own life. To me, babies are not inherently more valuable than animals, apart from having the potential to develop much more. Before this development into a person they obviously will feel pain etc. and should be protected from suffering, but if I had to choose between the life of a baby and that of a child of 10 for example (or even older), I would always sacrifice the baby who is uncomprehending of death and has no developed persona.




I totally concur with this view and yet i'm wary of admitting it in public.


Even some of the staunchest prochoicers would excoriate me for it and place
me in the same category as Dr. Peter Singer.


It's bad enough that i'm ostracized for being socially inept.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2010, 7:05 am

The egg is alive and the sperm is alive so life begins before conception.

Let us sharpen up the question: does human life begin when a human sperm and and human egg unite to form a zygote? Answer: yes. Within a few seconds a genuine human genome is formed.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jul 2010, 7:51 am

ruveyn wrote:
The egg is alive and the sperm is alive so life begins before conception.

Let us sharpen up the question: does human life begin when a human sperm and and human egg unite to form a zygote? Answer: yes. Within a few seconds a genuine human genome is formed.

ruveyn


A human may be started but what made the human was alive.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2010, 8:05 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The egg is alive and the sperm is alive so life begins before conception.

Let us sharpen up the question: does human life begin when a human sperm and and human egg unite to form a zygote? Answer: yes. Within a few seconds a genuine human genome is formed.

ruveyn


A human may be started but what made the human was alive.


Replication and maintaining the genome. Living cells will adapt to their environment (to some extent) to maintain their internal dynamics.

The two stigmata of life:

Homeostatic dynamic equilibrium and replication of parts and the entire organism.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

31 Jul 2010, 8:20 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The egg is alive and the sperm is alive so life begins before conception.

Let us sharpen up the question: does human life begin when a human sperm and and human egg unite to form a zygote? Answer: yes. Within a few seconds a genuine human genome is formed.

ruveyn


A human may be started but what made the human was alive.


Replication and maintaining the genome. Living cells will adapt to their environment (to some extent) to maintain their internal dynamics.

The two stigmata of life:

Homeostatic dynamic equilibrium and replication of parts and the entire organism.

ruveyn


And absolutely no abiotic processes at all.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

31 Jul 2010, 8:31 am

all beings are incepted from their entire chain of grandparents.
so before the egg and sperm were created, the life that created them was alive.

like a graft of a plant that creates a new plant may be a cutting from a bud of the parent plant, that bud may have appeared later in the life of the parent plant. none the less it is a continuation of the life of the parent plant that was in existence from the time of it's own inception.

the fact is that every being that lives today is a continuation of an unbroken chain of reproduction all the way back to the primordial soup. i am related to every other person on this planet because our forefathers condense into ever reducing variants on the tree of life.

if there was a singular genesis of life on this planet during the precambrian era in a primordial soup of amino acids that were arranged into proteins regulated by nucleic acids, then every life on earth is related to every other life. if i use an antibacterial agent to clean my hands, then i am killing my extremely distant cousins.

so, if i was exceptional to the primordial soup and i threw a bucket of disinfectant into that puddle, i would be resonsible for the preclusion of quintillions or even sextillions of private lives.