tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post7924124800743924961..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Defining life foolishlyBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-17958017412148199222012-08-15T04:12:25.851-07:002012-08-15T04:12:25.851-07:00If you need some more amunition against inane misc...If you need some more amunition against inane misconceptions, Erwin Schrödinger (yes, the Nobel prize winning physicist) once wrote a book called What is Life?. You'll find arguments about negative entropy in there and more.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-36185735538719124542012-08-14T09:50:39.696-07:002012-08-14T09:50:39.696-07:00James, thanks for relaying.James, thanks for relaying.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-73889579238979849892012-08-14T08:26:26.144-07:002012-08-14T08:26:26.144-07:00You're also getting (anonymously) beat up in t...You're also getting (anonymously) beat up in the comments <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2012/08/13/what-pray-tell-is-life/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, because the Faye Flam article referred to your thought experiment in a confusing way. I'm trying to clarify to people that the thought experiment itself (which I thought was very provocative and worthwhile) is NOT a creationist thought experiment. Oy...James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-30069357097916314702012-08-13T14:07:15.154-07:002012-08-13T14:07:15.154-07:00For the records, creationists, that it is possible...For the records, creationists, that it is possible to imagine life that doesn't evolve doesn't mean that life on Earth doesn't evolve. It demonstrably does..Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-31623539490892116042012-08-13T10:07:24.714-07:002012-08-13T10:07:24.714-07:00Hey Bjorn, you are now officially referred to anon...Hey Bjorn, you are now officially referred to anonymously as a "blogging post-doc", and your words are being used as ammunition by creationists!<br /><br />http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Is-Darwinian-Evolution-Universal-.html<br /><br />Egads! :DJames Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-70665810710533760142012-08-06T03:59:43.206-07:002012-08-06T03:59:43.206-07:00If I had to define life, I'd at least want to ...If I had to define life, I'd at least want to have individuals like myself included among the living. Now, individuals are not evolving and many human individuals also choose to not reproduce either (even in nature many individuals never make it though they'd want to). I think it would be really foolish to count them out for that matter.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-53532830885061834192012-08-05T17:11:18.476-07:002012-08-05T17:11:18.476-07:00Okay, Samuel, if you don't care what we define...Okay, Samuel, if you don't care what we define it as, then what does it all matter? I am not saying there is right and wrong in defining life - you may define however you want and that is then your that. But I think it is useful to define it sensibly, an in doing that, we have to take into consideration what people in general consider life. That was my point.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-4995942674128935592012-08-04T17:40:30.457-07:002012-08-04T17:40:30.457-07:00You say that "of course" a being which m...You say that "of course" a being which moves, eats, defecates etc is alive despite not reproducing - you have listed characteristics you believe indicate life. In other words, the definition of life as reproducing and evolving only fails because you have decided it fails - if life is defined as something which reproduces, how can the being you describe be considered 'alive'? <br /><br />There is certainly a need to descriptively define abstract concepts, biological examples of which include 'species' and, in the case of some organisms, 'individual', otherwise using such terms is meaningless. However, we need to look more carefully at the purpose of developing a prescriptive distinction between life and non-life; is such a firm distinction even useful? Does whether or not the hypothetical organism is alive matter, or is it only relevant to note whether it reproduces, metabolises, thinks etc? <br /><br />Physics does not distinguish between life and non-life; 'alive' is as artificial and human a construct as days of the week. Is midnight part of Monday or Tuesday? We can define it as either without changing its characteristics. Is something alive or not alive? Again, we can define it as either without changing its characteristics. There is no 'right' answer, and so in encountering a new organism we would essentially be asking, with definition or without, "Do we consider this thing to be similar enough to Earth life to also be alive?" It doesn't matter whether we decide it is or not; it will remain whatever it is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05757165796146810524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-58946591510384151852012-07-27T06:52:12.744-07:002012-07-27T06:52:12.744-07:00Sure, mind and conscience are not required. It wou...Sure, mind and conscience are not required. It would have been more appropriate of me to call Solaris sentient. Whether Solaris has a mind or conscience remains an open question or not even addressed question. Schätzing's The Swarm seems to have been inspired by it. Surely, many scientists have been inspired by it for I got the recommendation to read it back in the 90s from a physics professor.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-17578713464357676552012-07-27T05:51:43.804-07:002012-07-27T05:51:43.804-07:00No, I've never read that. That's perfect. ...No, I've never read that. That's perfect. (For the record I should state that whether this being is conscious of course doesn't matter for the life definition.)Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-65983173791236854022012-07-27T00:13:34.785-07:002012-07-27T00:13:34.785-07:00"Suppose we go to another planet and find one..."Suppose we go to another planet and find one being there, looking exactly like a human being. Everything we can measure about this being confirms that it is just as much alive as you and me. It eats, moves, heals, replenishes, communicates, feels, defecates. Learning more about this being, though, we find that it has no ancestors, and that it does not age. It does not reproduce, and it is the only such being on the planet. Thus, there is no lineage of descent and no population that can evolve. So this being is then not alive? Of course it is. This definition does not work."<br /><br />Did you read Solaris by Stanislav Lem (1961)? Lem's being on Solaris is not like a human, however, but like an ocean with metabolism and one issue IIRC was whether such a being would have a mind. The Hollywood movie Solaris (2002) did not transport these philosophical issues.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-45461335332069232372012-07-14T11:25:34.391-07:002012-07-14T11:25:34.391-07:00Yes, that is of course the definition we currently...Yes, that is of course the definition we currently use, but which may not work in the extremes. Many people seem to confuse prescriptive and descriptive definitions. Above I am talking about prescriptive, while Rosie use a descriptive definition.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-59893710745665139202012-07-13T18:14:08.294-07:002012-07-13T18:14:08.294-07:00Perhaps, like the iconic SCOTUS ruling on pornogra...Perhaps, like the iconic SCOTUS ruling on pornography, we know it when we see it?James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.com