As some of you already know, or suspect, I have decided to “return” to publishing OPs at TSZ. There are many reasons for that but mainly to save TSZ from what many blogs like this one suffered; the inevitable death. So, let’s see and hope that my take on old ideas can help to revitalize TSZ again… I have new ideas too…
I’m beginning with the most fundamental subject to most on both sides – LIFE.
Unfortunately, it didn’t take me long to get stuck on the issue, because there is no definition of life that most scientists would agree upon. So, to start us off with the series of OPs on life, we need to have a definition of life that most would agree on…
What is the definition of life?
So, welcome back everybody! J-mac is back in the house…
Let’s get this show rolling!
Remember to have fun…
J-Mac:
How noble of you, J-Mac. You will truly be our savior.
Oh, thank you soooo much for saving this site from self-destruction by submitting OPs again after leaving the site for good with much ado.
You’re too too kind.
And, as you say, I’m sure there are many other terrific reasons too!
Bah. Keiths ninja.
X>{
J-Mac, I thought you were going to start your own blog. What happened?
J-Mac:
keiths:
You need to create that blog, J-Mac. It’s your destiny.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/the-most-important-thing-about-nature.html
Yes, let’s have fun.
One of the patriarchs (yeah, patriachy!) of Quantum Mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger, wrote a book that inspired Watson and Crick.
http://www.whatislife.ie/schrodinger.htm
Life is simply whatever it is that only the designer or a deity can impart. Whatever that is it is beyond the reach of evolution of any sort, biological or chemical.
Precisely what life is is slightly beyond the edge of knowledge and will always remain so, but it is certain, whatever it is, it is due to a Élan vital that only immaterial beings that set fire to bushes can impart.
If life and the universe are the products of sheer dumb luck, we’d better have fun, coz there is neither purpose nor meaning attached to them…
BTW: Ever since I have abandoned my catholic faith, I have been searching for meaning that could possibly come from following some religious wisdom; materialists tell you straight up there is one…
What’s your take on that Sal? Can there meaning in your life , if God is going to destroy this world and the universe and recreate it?
Sal, I neither have heard of the book, nor the story…
How do you get this stuff?
I just ordered the book… I’m not sure when I’m going to read it as I’m reading 4 books and reviewing 2 papers…Writing 2…sort of… and getting ready for the consciousness conference thingy…
I also got a great novel related to QM…It’s awesome!
I think I’m gonna make my older son read the book and feed me the synopsis of it …lol
Nooo….. it’s ancient. I was only mentioning it for historical reference. Even I didn’t read the book!
But, well, at least if you have it in your possession you’ll have the writings what inspired TWO nobel prizes (the Watson-Crick Nobel Prize and the Wilkins Nobel Prize). Now you’ll know the stuff Nobel prizes are made of….
I could cancel the order but I would like my son to read it anyway…
I don’t like Nobel Prizes… They give awards to intelligent people who figured out what sheer dumb luck accomplished… how is that fair ? 😉
Sal,
If you want to get into QM, look into dark energy and dark matter…
I know that nobody has any proof what they are but just try to imagine what it would be like if dark energy that makes the universe accelerate its expansion, could also explain self-assembly in life systems, the animate properties of matter-like us…
What makes the dead matter animate?
Can Darwin followers explain it?
No way..
Yes. Jesus said:
The meaning of our lives and the crosses we bear each day, and the works we do that seem to go up in smoke, it has meaning, because our suffering today is giving meaning to the next life.
Think about God telling the prophets in advance to go preach the message somewhere and also telling them people won’t listen. Was the fact there was no result from their message imply there was no meaning in the mission? No. God will credit the prophet for being faithful in a little thing because it brings reward in the next life.
A lot of what we do in this life is God testing our faithfulness to be willing sacrifice. If you think about the children of Israel raising beautiful farm animals only to have them be sacrificed to go up in smoke, their work is a picture of Christ’s life and our lives on a perishing Earth. God was well pleased to see people invest themselves in simply doing what He asked, even if it went up in smoke (literally). We should be glad that all our efforts at making a better world, even if the world eventually goes up in smoke, the effort and sacrifice is still precious in God’s sight, and he will credit our account in the next life.
It is therefore meaningful, that even if someone is dying of a terminal illness, to provide comfort for them, even a glass of cold water.
When I read through the book of Leviticus, it seems insufferably boring. Raising animals, and sacrificing them at the alter and making them go up in smoke. Foremost is that these sacrifices are a picture of Christ’s sacrifice, but secondarily, it is a picture that even when our work goes up in smoke, it is precious in God’s sight if our heart is in the right place. That’s reassuring because a lot of things we do in this life will seem to go nowhere, but we can be reassured that as we bear each day with what seems like a pointless cross to bear, God will be pleased with us and we will, by His grace, be rewarded.
And fwiw, I almost laugh at the Utopianists like some of the New Atheists who think more science and technology will save us from the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and its consequences (like the death of the universe).
The reason God is making this world such an awful place is to make meaningful the next life. Sometimes bad is an essential ingredient for good. What do I mean? It’s kind of bad in sporting matches there has to be a loser, but that’s what makes the game special. If every team in the National Football league was guaranteed never to lose, no one would find value in the their football games. It would be meaningless.
In similar way, if this life were perfect, heaven would be rather meaningless. The meaningfulness of an eternal heaven is enhanced by the short term awfulness of the world, just as Paul said in 2 Cor 4:17. Were it not for such principles, I would have little reason to hope since there is no salvation in science.
The world looks designed to me, but it also looks fallen. The Bible gives the most coherent explanation for a designed world that is also awful. 2 Cor 4:17 makes sense of the Intelligent Design of an awful world that is going up in smoke:
There is a young man in our church who is terminally ill. When the elders considered the meaning of his suffering, 2 Cor 4:17 made much sense of it. Because the young man is a Christian, his momentary light affliction is building for him an eternal weight of glory.
All the study of ID and creation, to the extent they confirm the historicity of the Bible, lends reasons to trust the promises of the Bible as well and hope for that young man whose outer self is slowly wasting away but who is being renewed daily toward his eternal blessed state. And that’s why I find the creation/evolution controversy a worthy topic of study.
I think you mean what makes living matter animate.
I don’t know if they can, but, if you mean what makes living matter animate, I can. The answer has been known for quite a while. Energy flow.
If you really mean dead matter, then you’d have to clarify what you mean by it being animate.
It’s a very short book. I didn’t find it particularly insightful, but my problem was that I had been exposed to those ideas before. It’s an easy read, and if you’ve never read anything like it, it might be a good read. It’s also very cheap.
J-Mac, to Sal:
Oh, dear. I pity the other attendees of the “consciousness conference thingy”.
That’s awkwardly worded, as Entropy points out, but did you follow Faisal Ali’s link above?
In that blog post, Larry Moran writes:
I’ll slowly get around to revisiting the details of QM. I’m starting to lay the ground work at Alan Fox’s TheSkepticalForum.org. For my first math posting, which was related to something I learned in mathematical physics, see:
http://theskepticalforum.org/index.php?topic=346.0
Maybe after I get re-spooled up on my math (which is rusty), I’ll start boring in to QM. I’ve been perusing Griffiths book, btw.
Most creationists, myself included don’t believe in Dark Energy. One of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Adam Reiss, won the Nobel Prize for his work in Dark Energy. He was a professor at my school, and it was an honor to meet him. I never had the privilege of taking a class from him, however. Alas, even a few at our school (Johns Hopkins) have some reservations about the central thesis of his research, namely, Dark Energy. Besides, who would want Dark Energy to be true? It makes Einstein’s field equations even more nasty to deal with mathematically. Einstein’s equations were b-tch enough to work with without that blasted dark energy term in the equations. One would only hope Dark Energy isn’t real just to spare physics students from having to deal with it! UGH!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
J-Mac: Could you tell us what your definition of life is ?
“TWO” ??
Counting not Sal’s strong suit, I gather.
Can J-Mac explain it?
There seem to be two different discussions going on in this thread, and the one you are having is not about life, it is about purpose and meaning.
So what is it going to be? Are we going to discuss the nuts and bolts of biochemistry or do I need to defend myself from your perceived lack of comfort of a “materialistic” worldview?
The theists cannot actuallt agree between themselves what the actual specific “purpose” or “meaning” of life actually is.
J-Mac you note “if the universe is the product of luck” like it’s not clear that it is not, that there remains some doubt in your mind. Is that the case? Or are you 100% sure that there is purpose and meaning? If so, what is that purpose and meaning?
If you can’t say, then how are you sure?
Of course, I don’t expect you to actually address any of this. It’s sufficient that you simply talk and you illustrate my points. For example, up thread I noted that your definition of life is simply what evolution cannot achieve. And you have demonstrated that neatly with your subsequent comments.
All that matters is that Darwin followers cannot explain it rather then the fact that you can’t explain it either. If you were fair minded you’d acknowledge that.
But that just leads to the conclusion that ID/creationism is vacuous as an explanation for anything, when fairly judged.
And what creationist/IDist has ever been willing to admit that?
Glen Davidson
J-Mac,
I’m not sure why that’s a problem for you. Even when most scientists agree that does not seem to matter to you. Most scientists agree that Intelligent Design is nonsense but that consensus is clearly disputed by you. Most scientists agree that darwinian evolution and it’s naturalistic extensions have significant explanatory power (especially when compared to empty paradigms such as ID) but you of course dispute that.
So please don’t make out that what “most scientists agree on” is actually any concern to you at all.
They might not be willing, but they admit it every time they write a post such as this OP. Even if they don’t realize it. Their lack of an alternative is notable by its absence yet they never acknowledge that.
It’s simple, when biologists agree it’s a conspiracy, when they don’t agree it’s because they have no clue.
Well, not as much simple as simple-minded.
Glen Davidson
FMM has noted that in his view nothing running on a substrate of non-biological matter could ever be conscious, no matter how convincing the output or how many turing tests passed. He would ignore the pleas of an artificial entity for it’s “life” to be spared no matter what simply because in his view it could never be “alive” and would not think twice before hitting the power button.
Presumably this is because his god does not grant souls to “machines”. So here we have another definition of life, that which is alive is that which has a soul. That we can’t examine or determine the existence of such is neither here nor there to FMM et al.
Yet here J-Mac might disagree, if quantum computers were involved. J-Mac, can a quantum computer be conscious? If our brains “use” the quantum and machines “use” the quantum does that mean machines can have souls in your view?
Living matter is already animate!
That’s what distinguishes life from rocks…
Go back to school to learn the basics, including comprehension….
For now, bye-bye!
Seems you’ve forgotten so here, let me help:
What does make the “dead matter” animate?
You know that nobody is buying that you are writing books and scientific papers right?
The creationist flounce. And that’s despite the clarification already been given but (oddly) not quoted.
GIven the OP it’s not possible to go back to school to learn the basics about what is life, because according to the OP nobody can agree.
So here we wait for J-Mac to enlighten us. Get a comfy chair, it might be some time…
Which is why it’s proper to ask what makes it animate. For dead matter, you would have to explain what you mean. For example, do you mean to say that you saw a cadaver moving? Well, maybe it has gasses, maybe worms grew on it and the movement you see is those worms, etc.
Me? It’s you who’s asking a nonsensical question. I had the kindness to try and fix it and you got angry as if it was my fault that you write nonsense. Lesson learned, next time I won’t try and help you out.
I’d love to read the books and papers J-Mac claims he’s working on. Shame we never will.
Maybe you have already read them — all zero of them.
Nobody has provided A definition of life that at least the majority here would agree upon?
Personal attacks on me will not replace the lack of, will they?
It just proves how blind belief works… the commitment to materialism and that is it…
I got one:
In the beginning sheer dumb luck made not only lifeless matter animate, it also resolved the many chicken and egg paradoxes to assemble the first living cell…
Unfortunately, even today many intelligent Nobel Prize winners can’t figure out how the hell sheer dumb luck did it…
One thing is certain though: it had to be sheer dumb luck, because the alternative is not what the so-called intellectuals want to hear…
Because the pursuit of “science” is to support preconceived ideas, and not the truth…
Who can argue with this kind of philosophy?
It seems to me that the mystery arises because biochemistry is hard. And if you manage to master what is known, there remains stuff yet unknown.
As a kid I disassembled a lawn mower engine, put in new rings, and managed to get the thing to start. At one level I understood what an engine is and how it works, but I could never build one. And in fact, given a world in which no mining or manufacturing industries exist, no one could. No human being knows how to make a lawn mower engine from raw materials. And no human being could invent one without drawing on a huge library of prior art.
There is no real difference between the awe inspired by the complexity of life and the awe inspired by contemplating an engine. It’s just that stupid people think that both emerged fully formed from the head of a designer.
Nobody. Your “philosophy” doesn’t even deserve to be called that. You’ve shown that it’s impossible for reason to reach your mind:
1. You mistake attempts at explaining stuff to you for personal attacks.
2. You mistake the definition of life with the origin of life.
3. You think that having no definitions for life written in this thread is a commitment to materialism (!?)
4. You insist, despite innumerable corrections, on talking about natural processes as “sheer dumb luck.”
5. You think that it’s impossible for natural processes to result in situations that might look like paradoxes to someone with limited knowledge.
6. You think that, absent some answer, a fantasy is a legitimate “alternative.”
I suspect it will be something like this:
…sheer dumb…. luck….sheer dumb luck….sheer…. dumb luck….alternative!…God-did….it!….materialism..chicken-…egg..paradox….
It might contain a few pages of “sheer dumb luck” repeated over and over with random elipsis. My elipsis might be a bit too organized in comparison though.
Life is not only complex but messy, so it should not surprise us that it is hard to define (are viruses alive? not?). Many times I have seen discussions where someone says “look, before we discuss this, we have to have a clear definition of life”. And the onlookers foolishly agree that this needs to be settled. The result is a discussion that goes around and around without coming to any agreement. I quietly tiptoe away, because I’ve seen it all too many times. The discussion just becomes a considerable waste of everyone’s time.
I’ve been in biological sciences for about 58 years. I’ve been able to accomplish some things and am reasonably happy with my career. And all without ever having a precise definition of Life. And I think that the same is true of most biologists — they get on with it, leaving others to waste their time trying to settle this question.
The present thread has the odd feature that it is set up by someone who wants to have the discussion fail, and then go off and crow about it. But many fields have similar imprecisions. What is a “planet”? A “rock”? A “chemical”? A “society”?
I now tiptoe quietly away …
Entropy,
How weird is that? I started to type a reply to J-Mac’s comment and was interrupted by an incoming personal email that needed a quick reply. I then pick up on my reply to J-Mac and think “what’s the point?”, scrap it and see your reply.
Joe Felsenstein,
I think that’s the best course.
Entropy:
Don’t forget to sprinkle in a “lol” here and there.
Joe:
Right. There needs to be some agreement — the discussion won’t get very far if some participants think that doornails are alive and others think that they are, well, as dead as doornails. But the fuzzy edges of the category “living things” do not need to become razor-sharp before discussion can proceed.
There is the additional oddity that, should the discussion fail, that is at least as major a problem for the school of thought advocated by the originator of this discussion as for the viewpoint he is opposing. If the origin of “life” is evidence fo the existence of God, what good is that if you don’t even know that this “life” thing is, in the first place?
J-Mac: What do YOU think the purpose and meaning of life is?
What is a species? What is a domain?
Yes, I’ve never really gotten what a definition is supposed to add, although it would be nice to have. Anyway, since life really seems to be mostly chemisty honed for homeostasis and eventually reproduction, it’s unlikely that it will ever have an exact definition, which is sort of our point. There’s nothing that sets it irrevocably separate from other mostly organic chemistry in fact, it’s just what worked well enough and proved capable of evolution.
What seems to me to set life apart from anything else with complex functionality, though, is that it reproduces and evolves and is indelibly marked by these processes. On the other hand, theoretically one could presumably make new life sans reproduction, and would it matter (for deciding what life is) if it could not then reproduce?
However, I think that if we just want to identify what life as we know it is, that it is comprised of complex organisms that reproduce and exhibit the possibilities and limitations of evolution seems not a bad rule of thumb. It’s hardly everything that is important about life, and it may not work for identifying future life, but, at present, the fact that life has evolved and is lacking in crucial characteristics found in intelligently-made entities, such as purpose and rational leaps that void evolutionary limitations*, certainly does a good job of differentiating life from the other complex, functional entities.
Glen Davidson
*I realize that domesticated and genetically engineered life slightly bend this rule of thumb, but not all that much as yet.
J-Mac,
Here is a definition pulled from Webster’s.
I don’t believe your claims that you are publishing or reviewing scientific papers. If you want to call that a personal attack you can.
You seem to believe in your work sufficiently to (claim to) publish it as a paper. Yet it it seems you don’t have the same confidence in the arguments you make here in that you are unwilling to associate them with your real name. Fair enough, anonymity is allowed here. But it’s a convenient happenstance that you get to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Your arguments here are destroyed but it’s ok, you are going gangbusters on your “real” work that (presumably) supports all the claims you make here without supporting them.
The fact is J-Mac the only “papers” I can imagine you working on are the sort of “papers” that Salvador publishes in church basements to the credulous.
Can you support that statement? When I originally heard about ID for the first time I was genuinely curious to what had been “discovered”. I quickly learnt the truth of the matter, and decided to stick around mainly for the LOLs.
But if it turned out that there was an Intelligent Designer responsible for life I’d be perfectly happy to accept that. Given sufficient evidence, of course.
What is the alternative to sheer dumb luck J-Mac? An old testament fucker throwing lighting and fire? Is that what everybody is “afraid” to admit may be responsible for life? Do you ever actually think about your beliefs and preconceptions?
To generalize the behaviour I’ve seen it seems to be to bring souls to jebus even it it means inventing an entire pseudo science that supports their particular flavour of woo.
BioComplexity could always use more editors. I don’t know how they manage to review all of those research papers (2 in 1917) with only 31 editors. Especially with having to rely on these authors to also write the papers.