 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / June 2008Life?
So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are alive (limbs, organs but not fur, scales, feathers, claws?). The cells of the body are alive, since one celled animals are alive. But are the parts of the cell (the membrane, the plasma, nucleus, DNA ribosomes, Golgi body, mitochondria) alive? If those things are not alive how can the cell be alive? On May 27, 11:19 am, NTuser_...@msn.com wrote: > So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > alive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If those things are not alive how can the cell be alive? Is the question too complex? Too subtle? >On May 27, 11:19 am, NTuser_...@msn.com wrote: >> So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Is the question too complex? Too subtle? The question is simply too naive. How can an atom be hydrogen when it is made of a proton and an electron, neither of which are hydrogen? How can table salt be composed of two elements each one highly reactive and toxic? How can water, a liquid at room temperature and pressure, be composed of two elements each one a gas at room temperature and pressure? How can a question be composed of words none of which are a question? How can a word have meaning when it is made of letters none of which have meaning? Shall I go on? > >On May 27, 11:19 am, NTuser_...@msn.com wrote: > >> So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Shall I go on? Please do, if you can refrain from further personal insults and discuss in a civil matter. I am not fishing for a troll, as you appear to be. I am asking a serious question, not playing with definitions. >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are >alive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of the cell (the membrane, the plasma, nucleus, DNA ribosomes, >Golgi body, mitochondria) alive? no. You have not offered your criterion for being alive, but "no" seems likely here. >If those things are not alive how can the cell be alive? A brick is not a house. But you can make a house out of bricks. Same idea. Read about "emergent" properties. bob > >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > >alive [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > bob Calling on emergent properties refutes the reductionist position, but that is not a response to my question. My question obviates reductionism by inquiring how it is that the whole has a nature apparently not understood simply with reference to its parts. One might object that the question is complex and make a case for reductionism but I do not think anyone actually holds that position with regard to life, so I do not think reductionism needs to be addressed. I could be wrong in this matter. I did not offer a criterion for life for fur, scales, feathers, and claws, but I do not believe anyone regards these things as alive. I could be wrong on the matter, are these things alive rather than inert organic matter? Is their status disputed so that there an actual need? If I had a criterion for being alive I would not pose the question. Some things we judge to be alive, such as animals or plants, and we judge many of the components of those things to be alive, down to the individual cells. But are the parts of the cell (the membrane, the plasma, nucleus, DNA ribosomes, Golgi body, mitochondria) alive? I do not think all of them are. What makes the difference? Suppose we call life an emergent or supervenient property. What additional understanding does that label impart, other than a refutation of reductionism? >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >property. What additional understanding does that >label impart, other than a refutation of reductionism? Your position is simply silly. You don't have to be an emergentist to understand that a system with its complex of interactions between the parts does things differently that are not possible by the separate parts. A negative feedback thermostat regulates but the separate parts don't. An atom has discrete energy levels where the separate nucleus and electrons do not. Any process produced by the interaction between two components 'supervenes' or 'emerges' from the parts. Reductionism argues that you can predict the behavior or the total system knowing the properties of the parts including how they interact. That form of reductionism is not at all refuted by seeing new behavior arise from the interaction. > >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > interact. That form of reductionism is not at all refuted by seeing > new behavior arise from the interaction. Are you capable of carrying out a discussion sans ad hominem? Emergent properties arise out of of more fundamental components but are not reducible to more fundamental components. Those are controversial. That a complex system can exhibit predictable properties not themselves exhibited by component parts is not controversial. I never said otherwise, and in fact you provide a number of trivial examples. Trivial because a vocabulary is already in place such that we could define the example object (an atom, a thermostat) a house in terms of component parts. Such properties are not emergent properties. Calling life an emergent property may not very helpful. Appeal to emergent property, if that is the end of the discussion, seems to me sort of like putting a label on a mystery. It does not help understand how we know that, when analyzing a living body, after a certain point we know that we are are dealing with non living organic matter. "A brick is not a house. But you can make a house out of bricks" A vocabulary exists such that we could define an object such as a house in terms of component parts. I could be wrong, but I do not think a vocabulary exists such that we can actually define a living organism in terms of its component parts. >> >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are >> >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >not think a vocabulary exists such that we can actually define a >living organism in terms of its component parts. If you read what I said, it is the interaction between the component parts that produces the emergent behavior. The separate parts do not show that behavior because they lack such interaction. If you put the parts together, the dynamics of the ensemble changes dramatically; you get whole new behaviors, new "basins of attraction" if you will. Life is simply the ensemble of reactions within a cell that constitutes a dynamic system "basin of interaction". The separate components do not exhibit such behavior. Whether that emergence is predictable depends on how prescient we are in our imagination in putting together the components and analyzing exactly how they interact. > >> >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > >> >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > >> >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > >> >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What you wrote was "Any process produced by the interaction between two components 'supervenes' or 'emerges' from the parts", which, as formulated is a dubious claim and that was what I was responding to. But it really does not matter whether you go the emergent route or the reductionist route, or if you try to be ambiguous by appealing to prescience and imagination. That components interacting effect properties that the components do not exhibit separately is not controversial. Suppose we call the result a "basin of attraction". That still seems like only a label. Many processes produce new "basins of attraction" without that basin being life. >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >I did not offer a criterion for life That's fine. A "common sense" understanding of "life" is probably fine here -- at least until something comes up that suggests we are not agreeing on it. But the rest of what you wrote is quite mystifying. If you think someone has refuted reductionism, you better define that. Seems to me you have just attacked a straw man. Two of us have offered examples of how it is common that complex systems have properties not easily predicted from the parts. Do you understand those examples? Do you agree, then, that the situation you offer is not really any different -- just a different example? Your original message sounded like a "simple" question, whether naive or profound, we can't tell. Now, you seem to want an argument. What it is you want to argue about is not clear. Arguing terminology is not fruitful. So maybe you can explain what your concern is. If you have some special perspective that is relevant, maybe clue us in. (I have a background in chemistry and biology. With that perspective, I don't see any big deal here in the properties of life.) Just for fun... See the Wikipedia article on nanobacteria, especially the papers listed for 2008. The key conclusion is that the purported nanobacteria are not alive, but are some kind of unusual crystal formation process, in part involving organic material. I could not help but think as I read those papers how such a system could "easily" evolve into a life form. A fun idea. bob the cell is a unit of life. And ribosome and Golgi apparatus can't be alive. On Jun 1, 9:32 am, Suva...@gmail.com wrote: > the cell is a unit of life. And ribosome and Golgi apparatus can't be > alive. Suppose we take it as read that the ribosome and Golgi apparatus are not alive, yet the cell is. Suppose we further take it as read that the cell is observed to be the basic unit of life. The question remains, why is it the case that the ribosome and Golgi apparatus are not alive? > >> >So, a living body is alive and most of the parts of the body are > >> >alive [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > someone has refuted reductionism, you better define that. Seems to me > you have just attacked a straw man. If life really is an emergent property then a reductionist position on the matter of how a living organism arises from simpler matter is not on. You suggested that life is an emergent property, I am not sympathetic to a reductionist account of the matter and I do not think anyone actually wants to defend it, so in the context of the discussion reductionism on the matter is refuted, obviated. There is no need to do the actual work refuting a position taken by no participant in a discussion. The notion of emergent properties is also a difficult one if challenged, one could spend as many gallons of ink defending emergent properties as one could if one were to work up a reductive account in non question begging language. I recall a long discussion on the matter that seemed to hinge on whether ever physical event had a physical cause, a claim which itself can be the source of endless diversion Either way I do not thing that excursion is helpful. I am not making some sweeping claim that reductionism on all matters everywhere is refuted. That would be such a bizarre claim that I would never consider that anyone read it in to my post. > Two of us have offered examples of how it is common that complex > systems have properties not easily predicted from the parts. Do you > understand those examples? Do you agree, then, that the situation you > offer is not really any different -- just a different example? I am not disputing that some things are alive or that complex systems have properties not easily predicted from the parts. > Your original message sounded like a "simple" question, whether naive > or profound, we can't tell. Now, you seem to want an argument. What it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > help but think as I read those papers how such a system could "easily" > evolve into a life form. A fun idea. I am not making some sweeping claim that reductionism on all matters everywhere is refuted. That would be such a bizarre claim that I would never consider that anyone read it in to my post. What would be relevant is why the nanobacteria are not alive. Simply saying that a complex system can have properties not easily predicted from the parts does nothing to say how the cell is alive. If would be interesting if it turns out that the nanobacteria are very similar to "conventional" bacterium in function and behavior, yet is not alive. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.