Those involved in trying to create synthetic life from scratch have said that to be called 'alive' a thing must have certian properties, these are:
The ability to metabolise, the ability to reproduce, and an external covering for protection. So we can see that using this definition a rock is not alive whilst a plant is. On 3 Sep, 05:45, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > An interesting comment BJ. My guess is we try to understand through > metaphor. My partner clearly went through hell in chemo-therapy and I > could equate this in some part through my own previous experience > recovering from being shot (years ago). My best mate is blind and I > did once make a pathetic attempt to understand by trying to get to > work blindfold - I was nearly in panic at my front gate and couldn't > make it on the train even with assistance. I knew I'd fail - I just > wanted some clue about how damned hard it would be. I only lasted an > hour - quickly realising I'd never know the real experience because I > could take the blindfold off. There is something we can empathise, > but not the chronic nature of conditions. We don't know where the > individual starts and society ends - however we want to put this. > Science probably has it that we were all 'one cell' once - even this > is not the start. Fatty acids, which are not alive, tend to form > proto-cells - this stuff exists in comets and is probably older than > the Earth. Something pre-life seems 'designed' to form it. I would > guess by now they have made life from chemicals (Harvard) - we can > build a cell and computer-designed DNA from chemicals - suggesting at > least we can design new creatures from 'chemical scratch'. I'm not > sure yet in my pondering whether this is much more than making custard > without custard powder 'from scratch' - but suspect it is. If this > stuff (not the custard) has 'life' then what is 'life' - is it lurking > about waiting to inhabit what we think of as physical? Could our life > flit into it? There might be no need to dick around anymore Chris! > > On 3 Sep, 04:07, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Atheist Crazy? Reductionist Science? Sorry, Alan. What you are talking about > > is what is known as Science, period. You may have decided for yourself from > > your "Factor X" perspective that "soul" doesn't mean what I think it does, > > but what you are decrying is science, and to rebut my judgement of your > > position as non-scientific by attacking science, while pretending you are > > still operating within its confines, strikes me as the sort of disingenuous > > line of circular reasoning presented so readily by Intelligent Design > > folks...no, of course they don't mean Creation, by God...just something that > > looks, sounds, and smells just like it. > > The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's the only real > > rebuttal that I got from your position. That's a philosophical statement, > > not a scientific one. You ignored my observation that you were throwing out > > established science by saying that you start in observation. Yes, so did > > cavemen, and it took 6000 years to go from "God make the clouds go boom" to > > modern science. Guess how? By figuring out the parts, and the organization > > of those parts. > > > You're welcome to take an unscientific view, just be honest about it. Don't > > dick around and try to act like its something other than what it is. > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 23, 9:33 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a > > > thing > > > > > > proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you > > > > > > like, > > > but > > > > > > it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. > > > > > > We look around and notice there are living and nonliving things. What > > > > > is the cause of this observed difference? Let us call it 'soul'. If at > > > > > that point our 'legitimate biologist' want to ignore the formal cause > > > > > of the observed difference, and study the parts of the organism in > > > > > isolation, he is welcome to it. But unscientific? Why would you say > > > > > that? > > > > > First, why would we call the difference between life and non-life soul, > > > when > > > > there is an established scientific principle that life rises from > > > > organization? > > > > Established established principle that life arises from organization? > > > No, that is the stipulation of reductionism. > > > > > You completely throw out all of science to make that leap to > > > > begin with. > > > > I begin in observation. I look around, I notice there are living and > > > nonliving things. What is the cause of this observed difference? > > > let us call it the X factor. Don't go all atheist crazy over this term > > > soul; it is not what you think it is. > > > > >Then you make an error in scientific thought to state that this > > > > is ignoring a "formal cause of the observed difference"...not at all! > > > > The > > > > entire discipline of origins science is based on that observed > > > difference, > > > > and never once has a "soul" been offered in origins science as an > > > > explanation. > > > > Reductionist science is based on a certain way of studying this > > > difference -- of breaking the whole into parts, studying the parts, > > > ignoring the whole. They are welcome to that line of inquiry. It will > > > of course miss any effects of the X factor, defined to be the cause of > > > the observed difference between living and nonliving things.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
