John Jones wrote:yitwail wrote:John Jones wrote:life as 'chemical reactions' cannot differentiate life from chemicals in general.
Oh, I think life on the chemical level is easily differentiable from chemistry in general. Take photosynthesis for instance: carbon dioxide and water combine in the presence of sunlight to produce sugars and oxygen as a byproduct. It only occurs naturally within plant chloroplasts and cyanobacteria, as far as I know.
Yes, but then you have to say why you have chosen to look at plants and bacteria and what chemical reason makes them life-forms.
All representatives of the five kingdoms--plants, animals, fungi, protists, and bacteria--have complex, dynamic structures that are maintained by hundreds if not thousands of chemical reactions that can occur only within narrow ranges of environmental conditions, in the absence of which they rapidly decay.
I often use the example of the surface of the sun. Here we have an extraordinary complexity of reactions, typified by speed and the exchange of photons; it has a complexity on a par with the chemistry of life-forms.
John Jones wrote:I often use the example of the surface of the sun. Here we have an extraordinary complexity of reactions, typified by speed and the exchange of photons; it has a complexity on a par with the chemistry of life-forms.
Life-forms replicate, but stars do not. I deliberately omitted replication from my list of characteristics shared by living organisms since it's common knowledge. Further, stars do not adapt to changing, external environmental conditions, at least not in any ongoing, continual basis, as life-forms do; this adaptation characteristic was what I alluded to by using the term dynamic structure. Finally, the chemical reactions in life-forms occur in specific sequences, with many products of reactions forming material for further reactions, the most notable example being enzymes, which are protein sequences that serve to catalyze reactions that would otherwise occur too slowly to sustain an organism.
Concerning adaptation: It is not clear what is meant by 'a creature is adapted to its environment'. The adaptations a creature 'possesses' already define a specific environment or they would not be adaptations. And if a creature is a list of attributes or adaptations, then it is certain that there will be an environment to which it is adapted. I think the error that creeps in here with the statement 'a creature is adapted to its environment' is made by falsely distinguishing between two definitions of 'creature' (one that is composed of attributes, and one that is not) and claiming a causal relationship between them. So in the phrase 'a creature is adapted to its environment', we refer to the physical presence as 'creature' and also to a creature as a list of attributes by 'its environment', and then claim that there is an 'adaptation'.
Concerning adaptation: It is not clear what is meant by 'a creature is adapted to its environment' The adaptations a creature 'possesses' already define a specific environment or they would not be adaptations. And if a creature is a list of attributes or adaptations, then it is certain that there will be an environment to which it is adapted. I think the error that creeps in here with the statement 'a creature is adapted to its environment' is made by falsely distinguishing between two definitions of 'creature' (one that is composed of attributes, and one that is not) and claiming a causal relationship between them. So in the phrase 'a creature is adapted to its environment', we refer to the physical presence as 'creature' and also to a creature as a list of attributes by 'its environment', and then claim that there is an 'adaptation'.
Concerning the sequences of chemical reactions in life-forms: It could be argued that any physical process has set sequences. It merely behoves us to define the steps. What objects we use to define our steps are our own constructions, wrought from theory, or use, for example. So we would still need to say why the objects constructed and typified by biochemistry are examples that specify a life-form.
Quote:The first thing I would note is that the definition, by virtue of being a chemical definition, is impoverished: we would not expect chemical descriptions to meet a definition of life-form that would satisfy us if we wished to encompass by it the breadth of human affairs, for example. This diminishes the power of the definition even if it is shown to be a sufficient condition for defining a life-form.Concerning replication: Replication is possibly the strongest claim for defining a life-form. It certainly seems to be a necessary condition for a life-form, but is it a sufficient condition for defining a life-form?
An argument against replication being a sufficient condition for defining a life-form can be raised. Replication is one type of chemical reaction; there are many others, such as substitution, elimination, reduction, oxidation, etc. All of these occur in life-forms. They also occur elsewhere in varying degrees. So we would still need to say why 'just this precise mix of chemical reactions' define a life-form.
A third objection can be raised against replication being either a necessary or sufficient condition of a life-form. While we may be able to describe objects as life-forms it is not the life-forms as material objects that inform us of their status as life-objects or life-forms. There is also no sound materialist reason for choosing the objects we commonly describe as life-forms. The claim that life-forms are 'found' in nature is not one that can be made by any materialist doctrine such as evolutionary biology. The objects that constitute life-forms can be described by a materialist doctrine but not pointed out by it. To point out a life-form we must turn to common knowledge held by life-forms in general, that knowledge being their ability to recognise life-forms such as themselves. What happens in evolutionary biology is that we map a life-form of common knowledge to the chemistry that accompanies it. A mapping does not constitute a relationship. Consequently, we cannot claim that chemical replication is either a necessary or sufficient condition of being a life-form.
Ta. I can respond, you see. People only have to ask.
(c) John Jones
I don't understand this last sentence. "... a creature as a lits of attributes by 'its environment', ..." Sorry, but I just can't parse it.
Nonetheless, it is easy to recognize with even a little bit of study that the reactants and kinetics inside a cell are spectacularly different than the chemistry that takes place elsewhere in the environment.
Replication, by the way, is not a type of chemical reaction -- certainly not in the way that substitution, elimination, or redox are. Replication of DNA, for example, includes these (and many other) reaction classes; it is not comparable to them.
Until we map a life form to some other sort of chemistry, it is very useful to us to say that such-and-such a chemistry is a feature of things that are alive. Whether it meets this or that philosophical criterion for "trueness" is neither here nor there
Okay, I'll ask again: what does the "Pandora gene" that you mentioned at the beginning of this thread actually do? In what organisms is it found? What effect does a loss-of-function mutation have on the organism
The pandora gene suggested a new way of perceiving genes. This was that genes do not belong to individual animals but to an ecosystem
It is not clear what is meant by 'a creature is adapted to its environment'. The adaptations a creature 'possesses' already define a specific environment or they would not be adaptations. And if a creature is a list of attributes or adaptations, then it is certain that there will be an environment to which it is adapted.
And this is borne out empirically, for many creatures sacrifice themselves.
john jonesQuote:The pandora gene suggested a new way of perceiving genes. This was that genes do not belong to individual animals but to an ecosystem
Language is a tool john. We have assigned specific meanings to words, and these meanings do us fine. You, however, have decided to alter meanings and uses with your gibberish. A gene has specific properties, none of which include an extrinsic existence. .
Youre reaching for an extreme gaiast type of theoryhere, wherein all things feed back upon each other so that , even the physical surroundings are imbued with life -like properties. The misundesrtandings that you persist in pushing are based totally upon your (I assume purposeful) misuse of terms. For example , your use of "creature" AS attributes is a bit of purposeful erroneous miscasting A creature adapts to the environment presented it, or dies, or begins the process of evolution..Quote:It is not clear what is meant by 'a creature is adapted to its environment'. The adaptations a creature 'possesses' already define a specific environment or they would not be adaptations. And if a creature is a list of attributes or adaptations, then it is certain that there will be an environment to which it is adapted.
Youve gotta agree that this captioned paragraph that you put down is mostly devoid of meaning or sense. Its almost double-talk. You miss the context that the use of the word adaptations was presented you.
Im curious, why do you think that copywrighting your stuff is meaningful
1If you think its scholarly, then you would like it freely disseminated and quoted, based upon your ok
2If youre going to sell it , then youd have to find a publisher whod take on your worldview as important enough to "make a buck"
An argument against replication being a sufficient condition for defining a life-form can be raised. Replication is one type of chemical reaction; there are many others, such as substitution, elimination, reduction, oxidation, etc. All of these occur in life-forms. They also occur elsewhere in varying degrees. So we would still need to say why 'just this precise mix of chemical reactions' define a life-form.
Quote:And this is borne out empirically, for many creatures sacrifice themselves.
If you're talking about animals that display what we would call "altruism," it is almost inevitably for another animal of its own species (be it a subordinate wolf helping to raise anothers pups or a worker bee stinging and dying to defend the hive). I can't think of an example of an animal making any sort of sacrifice for the good of its ecosystem.
Perhaps you could describe some sort of scenario (a parable, if you will) to make clearer what you are getting at. I can only guess where you're coming from, and I've no way to know if my guesses are right -- and, right or wrong, they aren't presenting me with a very clear picture.
John Jones wrote:An argument against replication being a sufficient condition for defining a life-form can be raised. Replication is one type of chemical reaction; there are many others, such as substitution, elimination, reduction, oxidation, etc. All of these occur in life-forms. They also occur elsewhere in varying degrees. So we would still need to say why 'just this precise mix of chemical reactions' define a life-form.
A crucial detail that distinguishes replication of life forms is the process of cell-division. Cellular organization is a defining characteristic of every known lifeform, and without reproduction based on cell division, the earth could only sustain a population of invulnerable organisms. So allow me to define life as replication in this sense, combined with cellular organization and interaction with the environment through complex chemical reactions. Should you produce a counterexample of an object commonly regarded as inanimate that satifies my revised definition, I will attempt to revise my definition further.
The environment is defined by the creature, the creature defines an environment; you seem to think there is a common environment for all creatures.
No living thing is naturally altruistic. Altruism is against life.
If all genes were pandora genes then we can no longer regard individual animals as creatures seeking personal survival. And this is borne out empirically, for many creatures sacrifice themselves.
Quote:No living thing is naturally altruistic. Altruism is against life.
I didn't bring up altruism. You did.
Quote:If all genes were pandora genes then we can no longer regard individual animals as creatures seeking personal survival. And this is borne out empirically, for many creatures sacrifice themselves.
I never brought up altruism until you said that "many creatures sacrifice themselves," quoted above. If you meant something other than altruism by that, I'm sorry. Otherwise, please keep the dog and your growing rancor out of it. I've simply been trying -- quite calmly, I think -- to figure out what it is that you're saying...
...Not that I'm getting anywhere, as you keep shifting the target whenever you are asked for something more concrete. You've wandered far afield without ever stating a thesis, and when asked for further clarification on your Pandora's gene idea, you've sidestepped and stated that it was merely a "spoof." (Excuse me if my memory on that particular word is not spot on.) When asked for clarification about this, you've gone back to definitions of life and talk about volcanoes.
Ah, well, what to do.
Changes in the communal genes may make an individual animal more, or less, succesful at reproduction, but at the expense of the success of all animals in the ecosystem. If all genes were pandora genes then we can no longer regard individual animals as creatures seeking personal survival.
