http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo
Here's the description the video already had:
http://www.ted.com Artist Theo Jansen demonstrates the amazingly lifelike kinetic sculptures he builds from plastic tubes and lemonade bottles. His creatures are designed to move -- and even survive -- on their own.
I've seen this sort of thing before, but it is still interesting. But I find it silly to call them "alive" and especially silly to call them "animals" because they are most definitely neither. No reproduction=no life.
They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition. No secretion / excretion either.
Quote from: Richter on February 20, 2009, 06:49:25 PM
They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition. No secretion / excretion either.
Actually, I'm willing to give them a metabolism one, just because they use wind energy for motion.
I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.
Quote from: A Reverend Asshat on February 20, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.
Why is it requisite? and does it have to reproduce in a certain way?
would a robot with artificial intelligence that can assemble a copy of itself be alive?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2009, 07:03:37 PM
Why is it requisite? and does it have to reproduce in a certain way?
Mostly because it is a unique characteristic and is a basic common trait between plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria. It's also essential for evolution, another big part of life. I know this isn't the best answer, sorry. I'm more knowledgeable about life at a molecular level, at which point it follows the same laws of physics and chemistry that any inanimate object does. I eagerly await Kai's opinion because he studies whole organisms instead of their pieces.
The second question is harder to answer. For example, viruses can reproduce, granted they need a host, but many bacteria and fungi require a host to survive as well. And prions are misfolded proteins, but they can make other, preexisting, proteins into prions as well. Viruses and prions are not typically considered alive, but I'm not so sure about that. Especially with viruses because they are able to undergo evolution and take control of a host's biochemical processes.
Quotewould a robot with artificial intelligence that can assemble a copy of itself be alive?
That is a very good question (this means I don't know). Certainly if you considering viruses (or prions for that matter) to be alive this hypothetical robot fits as well.
Quote from: A Reverend Asshat on February 20, 2009, 06:55:54 PM
Quote from: Richter on February 20, 2009, 06:49:25 PM
They meet SOME of the criteria, but not enough to fit the textbook definition. No secretion / excretion either.
Actually, I'm willing to give them a metabolism one, just because they use wind energy for motion.
I will readily admit there is not a good definition of life, but reproduction is a pretty damn important part of it.
To go on a bit of a tangent there though, it makes me wonder how life would exist without reproduction. Instead of development and adaptation occuring over multiple generations by an evolutionary mechanism, how would / could it occur over a single organism that can continually self adapt? How would the need to self - adapt or self - specialize affect the development of awareness / intelligence?
While we may never SEE such a lifeform, it would be an interesting parable to explain self - adapting AI / Robotics.
(At this point, I wait for 000, Enki, or Cram to pipe in.)
That is a very interesting idea Richter. I'm not exactly sure how it would work, probably would need some fundamentally different biochemistry too. I would imagine it would have to be much more resistant to the harmful effects of mutation (assuming it could even use the DNA/RNA system). Or maybe a few "supercritters" that ingest anything remotely organic (or inorganic for that matter).
Then again, unless something is built without any form of reproduction it would have to remain a single cell. I think the consensus is that multicellularity evolved from single-celled organisms living in colonies until they became interdependent on each other to the point it's impossible to call them individuals.
Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature? A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?
The problem with giant single-celled life is that when their volume to surface area ratio is too high it can no longer perform basic cellular functions and dies.
I don't remember if that is what the Leviathan was, but it sounds familiar. Rat probably knows.
To me, the 3 big parts of what makes something living.
A) Metabolism. It has to convert energy to do whatever processes it has. There has to be some sort of exchange of energy, or things that had died (ie become ametabolic) would be considered living.
B) Response to stimuli. If a so called lifeform does not have any sort of response to stimuli from the environment, whether by simple trigger or complex neurology, it can't be living.
C) Reproduction. A living organism must have some process to reproduce itself. Yes, sterile beings would be considered living still, since the capacity for reproduction works on the cellular level as well. Reproduction is everything from fission to bisexual gametes.
The reason we use these clarifiers is because life is not just a unit, its a process, and we understand it as a process. You have to look at the organism over time.
I'll give the machines in the video part A. The use of wind is rather ingenious, transfer straight from kinetic energy to other kinetic energy to movement. It even has a bit of B, though very basic, it reacts to the stimulus of the waves. There is no sign, however, of C, and that is by many people the most important one. If the organism can't reproduce itself, then its not really alive. Thats part of the definition of a living thing because life is a process and to speak of something as living outside this process is quite....meaningless.
Thanks Kai, you made it a lot clearer than what I was saying.
Even if it were able to reproduce I highly doubt it would be a very fit organism. Large and delicate, and confined to a small environment.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2009, 07:46:12 PM
Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature? A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?
It would still need to be able to reproduce pieces of itself, even if not to survive (this is a thought experiment, we can presuppose it has some magic protein structure that does not decay), then in order to adapt, as well as in order to reach the size it did.
Bonus points to the bio geeks here for not trotting out the 'life is made of cells' definition.
There's more 11 synchronicity in that video.
I am experiencing the law of fives with elevens, bigtime.
Quote from: KC on February 20, 2009, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2009, 07:46:12 PM
Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature? A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?
It would still need to be able to reproduce pieces of itself, even if not to survive (this is a thought experiment, we can presuppose it has some magic protein structure that does not decay), then in order to adapt, as well as in order to reach the size it did.
Bonus points to the bio geeks here for not trotting out the 'life is made of cells' definition.
I think way too about the origin of life coming from runaway replication of RNA, so I don't think that definition of life works for me.
What do they say-- every seven or so years we get brand new organs through cellular life and death? Considering that even though our forms tend to appear to look the same doesn't mean that we're using the same cells we used 10 years ago.
I think the process of growth and decay is essential toward determining what is considered 'lifeform.'
Quote from: KC on February 20, 2009, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 20, 2009, 07:46:12 PM
Isn't the Leviathan in the Illuminatus! trilogy such a creature? A giant single celled creature that is nigh immortal, and adapts itself?
It would still need to be able to reproduce pieces of itself, even if not to survive (this is a thought experiment, we can presuppose it has some magic protein structure that does not decay), then in order to adapt, as well as in order to reach the size it did.
Bonus points to the bio geeks here for not trotting out the 'life is made of cells' definition.
I LIKE that take on it. Survival of the best adapted psedopods? :wink:
SOME self regeneration would be required, as every energy producing process I'm aware of produces some byproduct that isn't good for the whole organism.
Brings to mind a neat comparison of multicellular organisms and siphonophores (communal organisms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NWEdAkL92w )
I haven't read "Illuminatus!", but Shoggoths (Shoggi?) (Lovecraft) did come to mind, a formless protoplasm capable of locomotion, generating organs as needed.
Quote from: Burns on February 21, 2009, 03:19:50 AM
What do they say-- every seven or so years we get brand new organs through cellular life and death? Considering that even though our forms tend to appear to look the same doesn't mean that we're using the same cells we used 10 years ago.
I think the process of growth and decay is essential toward determining what is considered 'lifeform.'
Yeah, our organs cycle at different rates. Theres a few types of cells that don't cycle, like the pacemaker cells in the heart or neurons, but otherwise the body changes hands over time.
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Burns on February 21, 2009, 03:19:50 AM
What do they say-- every seven or so years we get brand new organs through cellular life and death? Considering that even though our forms tend to appear to look the same doesn't mean that we're using the same cells we used 10 years ago.
I think the process of growth and decay is essential toward determining what is considered 'lifeform.'
Yeah, our organs cycle at different rates. Theres a few types of cells that don't cycle, like the pacemaker cells in the heart or neurons, but otherwise the body changes hands over time.
Even the cells that don't die have to constantly replace their constituent molecules over time.
Quote from: Vene on February 22, 2009, 01:22:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Burns on February 21, 2009, 03:19:50 AM
What do they say-- every seven or so years we get brand new organs through cellular life and death? Considering that even though our forms tend to appear to look the same doesn't mean that we're using the same cells we used 10 years ago.
I think the process of growth and decay is essential toward determining what is considered 'lifeform.'
Yeah, our organs cycle at different rates. Theres a few types of cells that don't cycle, like the pacemaker cells in the heart or neurons, but otherwise the body changes hands over time.
Even the cells that don't die have to constantly replace their constituent molecules over time.
something like every 12 years you have a whole different body in terms of atoms.
Which shows just how emergent consciousness is.
I have this nagging association between intelligence and life, such that if something is deemed to be truly intelligent, then it should be considered alive, and the definition of 'life' should be expanded to encompass it....
just saying...
Quote from: Iptuous on February 22, 2009, 05:08:42 PM
I have this nagging association between intelligence and life, such that if something is deemed to be truly intelligent, then it should be considered alive, and the definition of 'life' should be expanded to encompass it....
just saying...
Perhaps an intellectual metabolism is a real metabolism. Self-alteration = growing new cells and cleaning out the body.
Quote from: KC on February 20, 2009, 11:01:48 PM
Bonus points to the bio geeks here for not trotting out the 'life is made of cells' definition.
Also,
THA LIFF ARE MAED OF SELS
Quote from: Iptuous on February 22, 2009, 05:08:42 PM
I have this nagging association between intelligence and life, such that if something is deemed to be truly intelligent, then it should be considered alive, and the definition of 'life' should be expanded to encompass it....
just saying...
I differ. While intelligent beings are worthy of as much moral significance and consideration as a human, I do not say it constitutes life.
On further reflection, I would like to suggest a rule of thumb:
If you can kill it, it probably was alive.
That just brings up the question of what counts as killing and what counts as destroying.
"....is a-liiiiiive!"
"No disassemble!"
(http://www.johnny-five.com/images/sc/scenes/gas_station.jpg)
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 23, 2009, 02:32:45 AM
On further reflection, I would like to suggest a rule of thumb:
If you can kill it, it probably was alive.
That doesn't work.
However, if it
feels like murder, it was ethically equivalent.
What is the concept of "life" even for, then? Is it supposed to mean things that we can eat and/or fuck?
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 23, 2009, 04:47:36 AM
What is the concept of "life" even for, then? Is it supposed to mean things that we can eat and/or fuck?
That's naive. The definition of life is used to differentiate inanimate objects from us. The language, you must understand, is structured with a bias toward its creators.
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 23, 2009, 04:47:36 AM
What is the concept of "life" even for, then? Is it supposed to mean things that we can eat and/or fuck?
The concept of life is useful in the context of science, especially biology, which is the study of living things. Life is not a unit so much as a process, and if you define that process to include all sorts of non living things then it essentially becomes meaningless to talk about and investigate.
Its kinda like saying "nothing is true, everything is permissible" to every single question of reality and morality. It makes the whole idea of discussing and investigating reality and morality meaningless.
But, Kai, you must admit that this is a particularly tricky term. I can see why some people might throw their hands up, or simply say 'i know it when i see it'.
For instance, what about a gradual replacement thought experiment? if you are unwilling to accept an intelligent robot as 'alive', when do you draw the line with slowly replacing someone with artificial parts? (assuming we could replace the brain piecemeal, etc....)
Iptuous,
Bicentennial Man (the BOOK, not the movie) is a good place to start. It pretty much replicates the ethical questions that would be brought up in your thought experiment.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2009, 01:47:45 PM
But, Kai, you must admit that this is a particularly tricky term. I can see why some people might throw their hands up, or simply say 'i know it when i see it'.
For instance, what about a gradual replacement thought experiment? if you are unwilling to accept an intelligent robot as 'alive', when do you draw the line with slowly replacing someone with artificial parts? (assuming we could replace the brain piecemeal, etc....)
I think that alive and conscious need to be considered as two separate things. Both have different but somewhat similar moral obligations.
Quote from: Kai on February 22, 2009, 01:55:41 AM
Quote from: Vene on February 22, 2009, 01:22:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 21, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
Quote from: Burns on February 21, 2009, 03:19:50 AM
What do they say-- every seven or so years we get brand new organs through cellular life and death? Considering that even though our forms tend to appear to look the same doesn't mean that we're using the same cells we used 10 years ago.
I think the process of growth and decay is essential toward determining what is considered 'lifeform.'
Yeah, our organs cycle at different rates. Theres a few types of cells that don't cycle, like the pacemaker cells in the heart or neurons, but otherwise the body changes hands over time.
Even the cells that don't die have to constantly replace their constituent molecules over time.
something like every 12 years you have a whole different body in terms of atoms.
Which shows just how emergent consciousness is.
1) This validates the concept of "Mana" I got from Hawai'ian culture enough for me to use it as a working concept.
2) I _Love_ Theo Jansen's psuedo-animals. Hit-up youtube and search for "Animaris Rhinoceros", that's his big /weight-mover-animal/. So fucking impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Z73HFx3CI
Theo knows his art isn't quite "life" yet, but he says he's been working out a way for them to replace parts and build new ones themselves.
What I find impressive, really, is the hip-joints he invented to make the things move. He basically re-invented the wheel (stable horizontal axis) so his creations could be more efficient on the sand.
http://www.strandbeest.es/strandbeest/theo-jansen/idea/
QuoteLegs prove to be more efficient on sand than wheels. Wheels have to work their way through the sand and shift relatively more of it as a result. Try pulling a cart through loose sand and it's hard work. The advantage of wheels, however, is that they don't lurch; their axle is at a constant height, which saves energy. But the legs of the strandbeest have this same advantage; they don't lurch either. The upper and lower leg parts move relative to one another in such a way that the hip joint (at the juncture with the upper leg) remains at a constant height, just as with the axle of a wheel. But they don't have the wheel's disadvantages; they don't need to touch every inch of the ground along the way, as a wheel has to. Legs can leave out patches of ground by stepping over them. Which is why you can better have legs than wheels on sandy ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GgOn66knqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CufN43By79s
don't get me wrong, I'd love to see hydraulic based lifeforms, but until they can reproduce without our help they aren't really living. Biology necessarily requires that part.
Damn, hydraulic based organisms. So cool.
Still, I really don't believe that he can make them so they can survive on their own and reproduce.
Quote from: Kai on February 24, 2009, 01:56:33 AM
don't get me wrong, I'd love to see hydraulic based lifeforms, but until they can reproduce without our help they aren't really living. Biology necessarily requires that part.
Damn, hydraulic based organisms. So cool.
Still, I really don't believe that he can make them so they can survive on their own and reproduce.
didn't click the link, but i assume these are the "strandbeesten".
my brother (studies Industrial Design) once went up to visit his construction yard, and played with one of the beasts. the artist himself wasnt in, btw, but the fence was open :-) they figured they came all that way and just had to do it :-)
anyway, it's more of an artistic thing, these beasts. and artists often need to make up cool sounding stories or talks about their art, and the discussion on whether it constitutes "life" is of course always an interesting angle (even if it obviously doesn't).
about the replacing parts, well I doubt he could pull it off, but on the other hand, these beasts are already super complex and it's amazing how they simply run on nothing but the wind on the beach.
Quote from: Kai on February 24, 2009, 01:56:33 AM
don't get me wrong, I'd love to see hydraulic based lifeforms, but until they can reproduce without our help they aren't really living. Biology necessarily requires that part.
Damn, hydraulic based organisms. So cool.
Still, I really don't believe that he can make them so they can survive on their own and reproduce.
'reproduce'.....
how trivial can this be before you give credit?
Presume you have an environment that is littered with robot 'halves' that are inert by themselves, but if assembled, are able to take two other halves and stick them together. pretty trivial, but does it count? If not, why? does it have to be internal to the creature to count? have some number of constituent pieces available in the environment? constituent pieces have to be under some threshold of complexity?
Felix: Bicentenial man was exactly what i was thinking about in that post,...
Quote from: Iptuous on February 27, 2009, 09:17:42 PMPresume you have an environment that is littered with robot 'halves' that are inert by themselves, but if assembled, are able to take two other halves and stick them together. pretty trivial, but does it count? If not, why? does it have to be internal to the creature to count? have some number of constituent pieces available in the environment? constituent pieces have to be under some threshold of complexity?
I think that's roughly how life started, what with the polymerization of nucleic acids, proteins, and all.*
*I know the question of abiogenesis isn't answered yet, but there are some damn good, evidenced, ideas.
Yeah.
The funny thing about THIS type of life is that it would be sorta backwards. We think polymerization and replication of nucleic acids happened first (reproduction) and that metabolism and interaction with the environment came second.
These things are coming from the opposite direction.
No, its NOT trivial. I've said it, I'll say it again, life is a PROCESS, and if we start including things that haven't come about by that or a very similar process the whole definition is meaningless.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 27, 2009, 09:17:42 PM
'reproduce'.....
how trivial can this be before you give credit?
Presume you have an environment that is littered with robot 'halves' that are inert by themselves, but if assembled, are able to take two other halves and stick them together. pretty trivial, but does it count? If not, why? does it have to be internal to the creature to count? have some number of constituent pieces available in the environment? constituent pieces have to be under some threshold of complexity?
If you have robots sticking other halves together to make more robots, then isn't that just a robot performing a predefined task? The structure of the first robot did not determine the one that it just assembled. There is also only one type which can possibly be made. You could have a completely different type of robot sticking the halves together too.
It seems to me that when we talk about reproduction, we are saying that the entity exposes information about its structure to the materials which will go into the process.
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2009, 11:39:00 PM
Yeah.
The funny thing about THIS type of life is that it would be sorta backwards. We think polymerization and replication of nucleic acids happened first (reproduction) and that metabolism and interaction with the environment came second.
These things are coming from the opposite direction.
No, its NOT trivial. I've said it, I'll say it again, life is a PROCESS, and if we start including things that haven't come about by that or a very similar process the whole definition is meaningless.
In what sense similar? Is there an objective test for similarity? How much analogy can we use? Can something life-like exist in computer-space (ie, a digitally-rendered universe)? Is a self-replicator within the game LIFE alive?
Are there living minds? Minds can be said to metabolize and build themsellves from information/ideas/memes. Are there also minds that, by my definition, do not live?
Simply put, should I consider life to reside in the chemical/physical plane only?
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 28, 2009, 04:26:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2009, 11:39:00 PM
Yeah.
The funny thing about THIS type of life is that it would be sorta backwards. We think polymerization and replication of nucleic acids happened first (reproduction) and that metabolism and interaction with the environment came second.
These things are coming from the opposite direction.
No, its NOT trivial. I've said it, I'll say it again, life is a PROCESS, and if we start including things that haven't come about by that or a very similar process the whole definition is meaningless.
In what sense similar? Is there an objective test for similarity? How much analogy can we use? Can something life-like exist in computer-space (ie, a digitally-rendered universe)? Is a self-replicator within the game LIFE alive?
Are there living minds? Minds can be said to metabolize and build themsellves from information/ideas/memes. Are there also minds that, by my definition, do not live?
Simply put, should I consider life to reside in the chemical/physical plane only?
Yes.
Minds aka consciousness is an emergent property of neurology /as far as we know now/, because no one has found a mind outside of that context. If you found some other way to come about that, then you should consider it possibly. No, minds do not metabolize information. Metabolism is energy transfer, not information transfer. Different level of emergence, different system, different language to describe said system.
Life is a process, a very specific process, a very physical/chemcal process, and outside of that context it doesn't even make sense to talk about it. Biology is not just a string of useless observations, its a massive framework all tied together by common descent and evolution. Dobzansky said "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and Agassiz said "Facts are stupid things until brought into connection with some general law." When you start adding things to systems that don't belong in the taxonomy of those systems, you get the sort of polyphyly that cladists STILL have trouble with, even years after Henning. Biology, like all good science, is testable, is question inducing, is hypothesis based. You wouldn't include the fishes in the arthropods in a classification scheme, so why would you include things in biology, the study of life, that don't belong there? It becomes useless and scientifically meaningless to talk about life outside these ideas.
Quote from: Kai on February 28, 2009, 05:37:32 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 28, 2009, 04:26:18 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2009, 11:39:00 PM
Yeah.
The funny thing about THIS type of life is that it would be sorta backwards. We think polymerization and replication of nucleic acids happened first (reproduction) and that metabolism and interaction with the environment came second.
These things are coming from the opposite direction.
No, its NOT trivial. I've said it, I'll say it again, life is a PROCESS, and if we start including things that haven't come about by that or a very similar process the whole definition is meaningless.
In what sense similar? Is there an objective test for similarity? How much analogy can we use? Can something life-like exist in computer-space (ie, a digitally-rendered universe)? Is a self-replicator within the game LIFE alive?
Are there living minds? Minds can be said to metabolize and build themsellves from information/ideas/memes. Are there also minds that, by my definition, do not live?
Simply put, should I consider life to reside in the chemical/physical plane only?
Yes.
Minds aka consciousness is an emergent property of neurology /as far as we know now/, because no one has found a mind outside of that context. If you found some other way to come about that, then you should consider it possibly. No, minds do not metabolize information. Metabolism is energy transfer, not information transfer. Different level of emergence, different system, different language to describe said system.
Life is a process, a very specific process, a very physical/chemcal process, and outside of that context it doesn't even make sense to talk about it. Biology is not just a string of useless observations, its a massive framework all tied together by common descent and evolution. Dobzansky said "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and Agassiz said "Facts are stupid things until brought into connection with some general law." When you start adding things to systems that don't belong in the taxonomy of those systems, you get the sort of polyphyly that cladists STILL have trouble with, even years after Henning. Biology, like all good science, is testable, is question inducing, is hypothesis based. You wouldn't include the fishes in the arthropods in a classification scheme, so why would you include things in biology, the study of life, that don't belong there? It becomes useless and scientifically meaningless to talk about life outside these ideas.
My apologies. I needed to get it through my thick skull that "life" is a technical term for you. I'm in a technical field, too, and posess a good liberal-arts-style vocabulary to boot, so I also have to remind myself to not fucking the whole internet over word-usage (much less grammar). I now see that I was asking the wrong things from you.
I doubt that cellular automata has reached complexity enough to leave computer science.
Memetics is memetics.
I hope you have a spot in the template for non-Earth life, to recognize it.
Quote
It becomes useless and scientifically meaningless to talk about life outside these ideas.
May I interpret this as, "Biology is defined to work within the territory defined in Biology"? I will recognize an exclusive claim to one definition-but not all definitions-of life. Biology may be the best to describe the dance of self-animated dust, ash, and wet; but I would not consider it an appropriate tool for understanding my life and how to live it.
I'm not upset, don't be thinking that heh
any system by which self replicating molecules obtain metabolism and have some sort of interaction with their environment could be considered life, even if it doesn't use nucleic acids.
Yeah, "life" should have been capitalized, as I was talking about the system. I was not talking about consciousness or happiness or anything. I was talking about Life in the biological sense, and a scientifically meaningful definition.
Although, I dissagree with you somewhat on your last statement. The Process of Sustaining came mostly out of my understanding of biology and emergent ecology, and I consider it the closest thing I have to religion.
Quote from: Kai on February 28, 2009, 07:42:20 AM
I'm not upset, don't be thinking that heh
any system by which self replicating molecules obtain metabolism and have some sort of interaction with their environment could be considered life, even if it doesn't use nucleic acids.
Thanks, good to know.
Quote
Although, I dissagree with you somewhat on your last statement. The Process of Sustaining came mostly out of my understanding of biology and emergent ecology, and I consider it the closest thing I have to religion.
I imagine I'd agree if I knew as much as you. I think I'll try to remind myself that the sciences people study (at least the sciences) are still dynamic -- info-alive, even.
Quote from: yhnmzw on March 01, 2009, 12:38:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on February 28, 2009, 07:42:20 AM
I'm not upset, don't be thinking that heh
any system by which self replicating molecules obtain metabolism and have some sort of interaction with their environment could be considered life, even if it doesn't use nucleic acids.
Thanks, good to know.
Quote
Although, I dissagree with you somewhat on your last statement. The Process of Sustaining came mostly out of my understanding of biology and emergent ecology, and I consider it the closest thing I have to religion.
I imagine I'd agree if I knew as much as you. I think I'll try to remind myself that the sciences people study (at least the sciences) are still dynamic -- info-alive, even.
Good science is never static. As our understanding of the universe changes, our science must change with it, or we fall into the trap of dogma.
without going back through the whole thread.....
did you say that you did or did not consider viruses to be alive?
Viruses are ametabolic. I don't consider them alive. More or less rogue DNA
Quote from: Kai on March 01, 2009, 11:50:29 PM
Viruses are ametabolic. I don't consider them alive. More or less rogue DNA
Or RNA, but the point is unchanged.
So, is virology general considered a biological science? Do you think of it as similar to toxicology even though the viruses are dynamic and evolve along with their hosts?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 02, 2009, 08:03:06 PM
So, is virology general considered a biological science? Do you think of it as similar to toxicology even though the viruses are dynamic and evolve along with their hosts?
Virology is usually considered along with the biological sciences because of viruses close and somewhat parasitic interaction with living things as a given and constant. I think of it more like a branch of medicine, honestly, or genetics, which would make it a biological science.
Its walking a line.
Quote from: Kai on March 02, 2009, 08:19:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 02, 2009, 08:03:06 PM
So, is virology general considered a biological science? Do you think of it as similar to toxicology even though the viruses are dynamic and evolve along with their hosts?
Virology is usually considered along with the biological sciences because of viruses close and somewhat parasitic interaction with living things as a given and constant. I think of it more like a branch of medicine, honestly, or genetics, which would make it a biological science.
Its walking a line.
I think it fits into biology because that's the closest match. I guess it could be argued that it could be chemistry, but considering the existence of biochemistry and that viruses share characteristics with life, it's part of biology. I also feel like sharing that in my microbiology class we just consider viruses to be alive, not because we think it's correct, but for the sake of simplicity.
Quote from: Vene on March 02, 2009, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on March 02, 2009, 08:19:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 02, 2009, 08:03:06 PM
So, is virology general considered a biological science? Do you think of it as similar to toxicology even though the viruses are dynamic and evolve along with their hosts?
Virology is usually considered along with the biological sciences because of viruses close and somewhat parasitic interaction with living things as a given and constant. I think of it more like a branch of medicine, honestly, or genetics, which would make it a biological science.
Its walking a line.
I think it fits into biology because that's the closest match. I guess it could be argued that it could be chemistry, but considering the existence of biochemistry and that viruses share characteristics with life, it's part of biology. I also feel like sharing that in my microbiology class we just consider viruses to be alive, not because we think it's correct, but for the sake of simplicity.
Yeah, even if you have a good fix on what is most definitely Life, and what is most definitely Non-Life, there's a gradient of Almost Life in between Non-Life and Life. That's where things get difficult to classify...viruses are Non-Life but they're just enough Almost Life that to really discuss microbiology you have to include them in with Life for simplicity sake.
Just thought I'd chip in with a random Buckminster Fuller quote:
QuoteFurthermore, today's hyperspecialization in socioeconomic functioning has come to preclude important popular philosophic considerations of the synergetic significance of, for instance, such historically important events as the discovery within the general region of experimental inquiry known as virology that the as-yet popularly assumed validity of the concepts of animate and inanimate phenomena have been experimentally invalidated. Atoms and crystal complexes of atoms were held to be obviously inanimate; the protoplasmic cells of biological phenomena were held to be obviously animate. It was deemed to be common sense that warm-blooded, moist, and soft-skinned humans were clearly not to be confused with hard, cold granite or steel objects. A clear-cut threshold between animate and inanimate was therefore assumed to exist as a fundamental dichotomy of all physical phenomena. This seemingly placed life exclusively within the bounds of the physical.
The supposed location of the threshold between animate and inanimate was methodically narrowed down by experimental science until it was confined specifically within the domain of virology. Virologists have been too busy, for instance, with their DNA-RNA genetic code isolatings, to find time to see the synergetic significance to society of the fact that they have found that no physical threshold does in fact exist between animate and inanimate. The possibility of its existence vanished because the supposedly unique physical qualities of both animate and inanimate have persisted right across yesterday's supposed threshold in both directions to permeate one another's-previously perceived to be exclusive-domains. Subsequently, what was animate has become foggier and foggier, and what is inanimate clearer and clearer. All organisms consist physically and in entirety of inherently inanimate atoms. The inanimate alone is not only omnipresent but is alone experimentally demonstrable. Belated news of the elimination of this threshold must be interpreted to mean that whatever life may be, it has not been isolated and thereby identified as residual in the biological cell, as had been supposed by the false assumption that there was a separate physical phenomenon called animate within which life existed. No life per se has been isolated. The threshold between animate and inanimate has vanished. Those chemists who are preoccupied in synthesizing the particular atomically structured molecules identified as the prime constituents of humanly employed organisms will, even if they are chemically successful, be as remote from creating life as are automobile manufacturers from creating the human drivers of their automobiles. Only the physical connections and development complexes of distinctly "nonlife" atoms into molecules, into cells, into animals, has been and will be discovered. The genetic coding of the design controls of organic systems offers no more explanation of life than did the specifications of the designs of the telephone system's apparatus and operation explain the nature of the life that communicates weightlessly to life over the only physically ponderable telephone system. Whatever else life may be, we know it is weightless. At the moment of death, no weight is lost. All the chemicals, including the chemist's life ingredients, are present, but life has vanished. The physical is inherently entropic, giving off energy in ever more disorderly ways. The metaphysical is antientropic, methodically marshalling energy. Life is antientropic. It is spontaneously inquisitive. It sorts out and endeavors to understand.
I was about to leave out the last few sentences, but left them in - warts 'n' all. Despite the teleology along with his cynicism towards academic specialisation, I find that quote to be one of my favourites of his.
Sorry, I got to "hyperspecialization in socioeconomic functioning," and my brain simply locked up.
Yeah, sounds like 'suit talk' for social philosophers.
Quote from: LMNO once again on March 03, 2009, 02:04:53 PM
Sorry, I got to "hyperspecialization in socioeconomic functioning," and my brain simply locked up.
That's pretty mild for Bucky. I could probably find quotes that would end with your brain being cordoned off with caution tape, but I'll spare you. A lot of his writing just sinks off into poetry, almost.
Quote from: Xooxe on March 04, 2009, 02:41:42 AM
Quote from: LMNO once again on March 03, 2009, 02:04:53 PM
Sorry, I got to "hyperspecialization in socioeconomic functioning," and my brain simply locked up.
That's pretty mild for Bucky. I could probably find quotes that would end with your brain being cordoned off with caution tape, but I'll spare you. A lot of his writing just sinks off into poetry, almost.
Is this the same Bucky started up all the geodesic dome architecture?
I'm not sure whether he started it, but he definately popularised it.
I'm almost completely certain he invented the geodesic dome.
The synchronofile is a private collection of printed work by and about R. Buckminster Fuller, owned by Trevor Blake and located in Portland, OR USA. Access to researchers available by appointment.
http://synchronofile.com/
http://www.ovo127.com/blog/labels/synergetics.html
http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/bfi_community/bibliography/bibliography/two_new_fuller_books
The Lost Inventions of Buckminster Fuller (Part 1 of 3) by Klint Finley
http://renegadefuturist.com/archives/2009/03/02/the-lost-inventions-of-buckminster-fuller-part-1-of-3/
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/status.html
I know a little about Fuller, but ought to pick a line of approach for learning more.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/the-cajun-crawl.html
fuck yeah, biophysics!