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…
Acartia:
1917? They’ve been around longer than I thought. 🙂
There can’t and never will be one definition of life!
Why?
Because everything that can be distinguished from nonliving matter, can’t fit into one definition of life, such as viruses and us…
This is consistent with the notion of many independent “life” origins which contradicts the preconceived idea of one common ancestor…
That’s why Joe F calls life “messy” because it doesn’t fit into his preconceived idea of all life originating from one common ancestor…
Life only comes from life and it always will… That’s an indisputable, scientific fact… Many people don’t like this fact, but that doesn’t change the fact, does it?
If you can’t define life, how can you ascribe meaning to it?
O’RLY?!
Speculating about life you call a career? If you say so…
I’m wise beyond my beers.
Why would I need to ascribe meaning to anything but my own life and that of my loved ones?
I can do that without a definition.
And the whole known universe is a system of energy flow and so I propose that the universe is alive.
…tiptoe…tiptoe…
A robot obeys the standard laws of physics and chemistry. No need to look further for an explanation of robots.
A robot obeys the standard laws of physics and chemistry. No need to look further for an explanation of robots.
Why? Understanding that no magic is necessary for life to work doesn’t mean that there’s no need for further study. We still care about how it works in more precise terms. We still care about how we appeared in the scene, the history of life, etc. I doubt that Larry intended to mean that no more studies should be done.
Leaving aside the non sequitur, you said yourself that life cannot be defined just above where you wrote this. Can you try and be a bit less incoherent? Maybe if you exercised that process called thinking?
CharlieM:
Entropy:
Right. And in case Charlie hasn’t noticed, there’s an entire scientific field dedicated to figuring out how life originated, and another entire scientific field dedicated to showing how it got from that origin to where it is today.
Wow, you certainly haven’t read Moran’s (et al.) textbook, which clearly goes well into detail about the biochemistry of various processes.
No, robots don’t need any vitalistic explanation beyond chemistry and physics, and neither does life (as in, chemistry explains, meditation doesn’t). They need much more explanation than the mention of “chemistry and physics,” and so does life. That’s why we have biologic science.
Scientists aren’t like Steiner, content with thinking about thinking.
Glen Davidson
What’s the meaning in your and your loved ones’ life then?
I don’t know for sure…I’m evaluating different concepts…
But if the universe and life were designed with a purpose, then our existence and life should have some kind of meaning and purpose…
Unlike materialists, I’m determined to figure it out…
I’m willing to agree with you …but my take would be energy we don’t know about; have not been able to detect; such as dark energy…
If it was just any energy (sunlight) we would be able to at least reassemble a living cell that its membrane gets broken and content leaks out…
Why can’t we do it, if sheer dumb luck did it?
It is better to be lucky than good
I imagine it’s not very different from the way you give meaning to your life: love, friendship, learning about the world and teaching your children, developing yourself and helping others.
Oh, and Star Wars of course
Purpose and meaning are human-invented concepts. And they can change depending upon the context. For you to search for some universal meaning and purpose for life implies that you believe in some universal context. Existence entails many layers of many contexts. The only universal context one might imagine is non-existence.
Are you prepared to explore non-existence?
Because nobody claims that is what happened. Unless of course you can provide a citation? The only people that claim that is what happened are people building a strawman.
You keep saying if, as if there is some doubt.
What makes you think there is purpose at all, if you can’t even begin to figure it out? What makes you different to the billions of people who came before you, none of which figured it out either?
OMagain,
What is the alternative claim to creation regarding the origin of the universe?
It is unknown.
Don’t know, but open minded.
Got any ideas? As all I’ve heard so far is that an old man in the sky did it from you.
Not old, seasoned.
There have been some ideas already:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Or it may have had no beginning at all. Given you are happy to accept that characteristic in a deity without question I’m sure you’ll be happy to accept it for reality.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096622-our-universe-could-be-reborn-as-a-bouncing-baby-cosmos/
So the jury seems to be out at the moment. But if we consider an Intelligent Designer as the origin of the universe then we must surely conclude that we are a mere byproduct of whatever it was (black holes? empty space?) that the universe was actually designed for. As we occupy a staggeringly small part of it and every moment untold areas of the universe disappear over a causal horizon, lost to our gaze for eternity.
But do tell me more about the bearded god who feeds it’s creations apples of knowledge and talking snakes….
OMagain,
How do you reach this conclusion given the most sophisticated application of atoms and molecules, the basic components of the universe, is the human brain. How can you build a human brain without the forethought of that design prior to the design of the atom?
Was the microprocessor designed without the computer as a forethought of that design?
Ever seen a peacocks tail? What evidence do you have that that’s what your deity was aiming for?
Human brains evolved. You’ve no evidence atoms were designed, apart from wishes.
Never seen a wooden “computer”?
How do you reach the conclusion that the designer was aiming for the human brain? Why is the universe not full of nothing but slight variations on our solar system then?
It’s funny how your god works in mysterious ways, except when it’s designing the atom and making human brains.
In what way did an evidence-free* fantasy become something that might have “alternative claims”?
Any old myth or fantasy is a reasonable “alternative” to the creation myth.
Glen Davidson
*In the sense of evidence that is meaningful and detailed.
Good point. colewd, what’s your actual answer as to the origin of the universe then? I hope it’s more then mere speculation otherwise you are going to look pretty silly!
Omagain is one of the biggest believers on this site.
Give me something else to believe in then. Something better supported by evidence then that they evolved.
But you can’t do that can you? Abuse is all you have to give.
In any case, I don’t need to believe human brains evolved, it’s supported by evidence. Belief is for you in whatever it is that you pretend as an “explanation”.
Remind me what you believe in? I’m not afraid to say, unlike you.
OMagain,
You have no evidence that the human brain evolved. This is an evolutionist assertion.
The fact that atoms can assemble to build a human brain, heart, kidney etc is evidence that the atom was designed. The hydrogen atoms functions as a interface component for both DNA and proteins. How is this possible without forethought of the parameters of the atom?
OMagain,
When all else fails invoke the logical fallacy of a burden shift 🙂
We have stated creation as one alternative. We can site the historical evidence of the Judaeo Christian Bible. Your proposal has yet to be brought forward. Lets see if you can defend your claim without the logical fallacy of a circular argument.
Well, that’s kind of nice of you.
Which means that you might not understand that energy flow is energy flow.
That’s a non sequitur. Our ability or lack therein to reassemble a cell has nothing to do with the type of energy flow that makes living forms “animate.” Energy flow is what’s behind any type of work. Life’s work is no different.
Everyday, cells assemble from broken cells by a process consisting on eating those broken cells and using those materials to build new cells. Other cells reassemble spontaneously after been broken if they have food available around them, because their proteins can do that kind of thing. There might be other processes, but none comes to mind consisting of “sheer dumb luck.”
The explanation of a robot is not complete without taking into account the human mind or minds behind its coming into existence.
Nope. It’s not a mere assertion. There’s plenty of evidence. That you do not know, or might reject, the evidence doesn’t make the evolution of the human brain an assertion.
No it isn’t. It’s just evidence that atoms can assemble into human brains, kidneys, etc. Why are you so willing to say that something is an “evolutionist” assertion, yet you don’t see how obviously this is a mere creationist assertion. One that has really no evidence at all to talk about. If you’re going to say that other engage in some kind of fallacy, you better keep yourself consistent.
It’s possible because that’s the way atoms work. Simple and straightforward. Not only that, you’re trying to explain the existence of human beings, by the existence of something pretty much like a human being, only much more capable. To keep yourself consistent you’d have to agree that such idea, besides having no evidence, is fallacious two-ways.
One way because instead of explaining the phenomenon you move it into the question as to how does those other “designers” (for which there’s no evidence to talk about) get assembled? Other kinds of atoms? What makes those other kinds of atoms assemble into that other brain if not forethought? Etc.
The second way, because, of course, you’re thinking of a magical being, and the only reason to imagine that design is needed for atoms to do what they do, is if you have that conclusion as your premise. You’re allowing your imagination to go further than necessary, in terms of why atoms do what they do, for that reason alone: you want it to be the magical being.
Sure. That means that metaphors have limits.
Yes, the search for knowledge is a wonderful thing.
And there is an entire scientific field dedicated to figuring out how an individual develops from conception to maturity all proceeding within the laws of physics and chemistry. But I also know the humans story behind the development of my kids from before their conception to maturity.
There is nothing wrong with going into great detail about biochemistry, it’s an important aspect of life.
They cannot be properly explained without the minds that brought them about.
And can you explain in chemical terms how you came to that opinion?
Steiner was a scientst
And so different from the way you misrepresented what Moran wrote.
Same with arrowheads. Do you have a meaningful point?
And can you explain in gravitational terms how you came up with such a disingenuous question?
Ha ha ha ha!
Glen Davidson
J-Mac: If you cannot even suggest a ‘definition of life’, why bother with the whole OP ?
That’s the point of the OP!
There can’t be one definition of life because life forms, other than being alive, have slightly different properties… This suggests independent life origins…
Since you seem to understand the energy flow, why can’t you use this understanding to recreate simple cell ? Or why don’t you tell Shostak how to use the energy flow to create life?
Let’s listen to the materialistic excuses now how the earth conditions are not right now to create life… And yet they are surprisingly ideal to sustain a trillion species…
A story like that gotta be true 😉
Entropy,
You are proving my point by backing up the assertion with your own assertion. Evidence for evolution of novelty is non existent other then some “just so” stories that in themselves are speculation and not evidence.
Unlike your claim, the atoms ability to configure to create a functioning living organism is evidence of design just as semiconductors ability to configure to make functioning computers is evidence of design. There is no evidence that new complex function arrived on its own. With design we can start with complexity and this is what the evidence is telling us.
Great. How is it that these magnificent components were originated without design?
The reasoning is inductive based on the observation of the Universe and its basic components cells, atoms and molecules. Using the term “magical” is an attempt at labeling which is circular reasoning at its core.
I’m not proving your point. I’m just telling you that your dismissal of evidence, like the one you offered just now, is a reflexion of your ignorance, not actual lack of evidence. There’s no space here to discuss the evidence, but my point is not refuted just because all I can do here is tell you where you’re going wrong (besides exercising a double standard, as you insist on doing).
So, I’m supposed to accept this on your mere assertion, while my telling you that there’s evidence for the evolution of the brain, well, you dismiss it because it’s an assertion. See your double standards yet?
You cannot use semiconductors to try and make that “inference” because both, semiconductors, and the beings who design semiconductors, are made of atoms.
How is it that we should even consider design, other than because you have a belief that you want to feel justified about? You’re engaging into begging the question, yet you complain that others might be doing so? Double standard again.
From where I stand, I’d say that the question about how come atoms can do what they do, might be open, or maybe there’s some answers already that I don’t know about. But design would never enter my mind. That would be nonsensical. Design implies designers. All designers I know about are made of atoms. That means that designers are out of the question.
Today, even the blind, can find a religion that suit best their own beliefs…
If you have doubts, ask Entropy to tell you how life came to be… 🙂