Biological definitions of life tend to have changed rather a lot since I was an undergraduate. Our increased understanding of the physical- chemical basis of living systems has increased enormously over the past century and it is possible to give a plausible definition of life in these terms. “Living organisms are autopoietic systems: self- constructing, self-maintaining, energy-transducing autocatalytic entities” in which information needed to construct the next generation of organisms is stabilized in nucleic acids that replicate within the context of whole cells and work with other developmental resources during the life-cycles of organisms, but they are also “systems capable of evolving by variation and natural selection: self- reproducing entities, whose forms and functions are adapted to their environment and reflect the composition and history of an ecosystem” . Such a perspective represents a fulfillment of the basic dual insights of Schrödinger near mid-century (his famous 'what is life lecture'). Much remains to be elucidated about the relationships among the complex molecular systems of living entities, how they are constrained by the system as a whole as well as by physical laws. Indeed, it is still an open question for some as to whether we have yet a sufficiently rich understanding of the laws of nature or whether we need to seek deep laws that lead to order and organization. At the start of the new century there is a sense of the importance of putting Schrödinger's program into a ‘systems’ context. Significant challenges remain, such as fully integrating our new view of organisms and their action with evolutionary theory, and to understand plausible routes for the emergence of life. The fulfillment of such a program will give us a good sense of what life is on earth. Work in artificial-Life and empirical work seeking evidence of extra-terrestrial life may help the formulation of a more universal concept of life. Yet it still may be a mistake to ascribe consciousness to 'life', even in new definitions of that.
On 6 Sep, 16:36, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/9/6 Vam <[email protected]>: > > > > > " Well, that is interesting. So where is this 'self' waiting for the > > brain? Why is there no memory of self before conception? How do you > > measure its longevity? How long has it been waiting? How does this > > self without a brain begin to exist? What does it do while it is > > waiting ?" > > > These questions are best ( and perhaps more immediately ) answered > > through one's own effort because they pertain to you, your self, your > > mind. Why should you require another person to pry open or reveal what > > is yours, what you are ? > > Well, I have zero experience of anything for which I would want to use > the word 'soul' (compounded by the fact that I don't know exactly what > people mean when they use the word). I have no concept of soul or self > that isn't simply the result of brain function. I exist, I make > assumptions that others exist as I do. > > However, the questions I asked are because I have no idea what people > are talking about when they make statements that seem to indicate that > self precedes conception. It sounds, frankly, fanciful and without any > basis at all. So, if you and others can answer those questions perhaps > the use of the words will make sense to me. Care to answer them for > yourself? > > Thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
