Originally posted by bbarr Christ, what a stupid debate. Hey dj2becker, go look up the elan vital. There is nothing special about life, it is not some mystical force that infuses matter, you know. We call things 'alive' when they have certain properties, like a metabolism. There are no clear boundaries between the category of things we call 'alive' and the category of thi ...[text shortened]... out life; it is just a certain sort of physical constitution, a certain sort of complex order.
It always surprises me Bbarr how certain you are about your own knowledge and how superficially you look at reality.
You are as fundamentalist, one-dimensional and above all as reductionist as the fundamentalists whom you want to fight.
Originally posted by bbarr Uh, the second half of the sentence you quoted. It is the second half that explicates what is meant by the use of the term 'special' in the first half.
Bbarr: "There is nothing special about life, it is not some mystical force that infuses matter, you know."
Then what is life then, if it is nothing special ?
"There is nothing special about life, it is not some mystical force that infuses matter, you know."
Then what is life then if it is nothing special ?
As I mentioned above, life is not some mystical force that infuses matter. If you want to know those processes that we normally identify as being criterial to the attribution of the property 'living' to an object or an entity, then a moments research on your part would suffice. Metabolism is one of these properties, but there are others.
Originally posted by bbarr As I mentioned above, life is not some mystical force that infuses matter. If you want to know those processes that we normally identify as being criterial to the attribution of the property 'living' to an object or an entity, then a moments research on your part would suffice. Metabolism is one of these properties, but there are others.
Originally posted by ivanhoe Well, why don't you name them ?
'Cause I'm not your little research monkey, Joe. You have two hands and a brain, so look 'em up yourself. If you try for ten whole mintues to look 'em up, and fail, then I'll list them for you. Deal?
Originally posted by bobbob1056th Viruses are not living.
Better send this information to the Nobel Prize committee and clear your calendar for the award ceremony; biologists agree that:
Viruses are the smallest known forms of life, in their simplest forms consisting of little more than a small amount of genetic material.
http://www.epidemic.org/theFacts/viruses/
It's a pretty cool site; there's lots of information about viruses, but I'm sure they'll be very sad to know that you have now ended their existence as living things.:'(
Originally posted by ivanhoe It always surprises me Bbarr how certain you are about your own knowledge and how superficially you look at reality.
You are as fundamentalist, one-dimensional and above all as reductionist as the fundamentalists whom you want to fight.
I know what I know. Some things I'm pretty certain about. I am a reductionist about life, because I think life is nothing over and above the presence of certain physical properties in an object or entity. I am not a reductionist about consciousness, however. I bet that is something you didn't know. Of course, you don't know any number of things about how I "look at reality". This is one reason you always end up looking so stupid when you attack me in the forums.
Originally posted by bbarr I know what I know. Some things I'm pretty certain about. I am a reductionist about life, because I think life is nothing over and above the presence of certain physical properties in an object or entity. I am not a reductionist about consciousness, however. I bet that is something you didn't know. Of course, you don't know any number of things about h ...[text shortened]... ity". This is one reason you always end up looking so stupid when you attack me in the forums.
Please, don't get so worked up. Your philosophical stances are reductionist. I'm sure in real life it's a different deal for you. I'm sure you'd love your pet, if you'd have one ........
Originally posted by ivanhoe Please, don't get so worked up. Your philosophical stances are reductionist. I'm sure in real life it's a different deal for you. I'm sure you'd love your pet, if you'd have one ........
If you think my views are reductionist, then you either don't know what the term 'reductionist' means, or you don't know what my philosophical views are.
Have you looked up the characteristic properties of life yet, Joe? Here's a quick hint: type in "characteristics of living things" into your favorite search engine!
I have pets. I have two cats upstairs that feed on a baptist chained up in the basement.
Originally posted by bbarr If you think my views are reductionist, then you either don't know what the term 'reductionist' means, or you don't know what my philosophical views are.
Have you looked up the characteristic properties of life yet, Joe? Here's a quick hint: type in "characteristics of living things" into your favorite search engine!
I have pets. I have two cats upstairs that feed on a baptist chained up in the basement.
Originally posted by bbarr If you think my views are reductionist, then you either don't know what the term 'reductionist' means, or you don't know what my philosophical views are.
Have you looked up the characteristic properties of life yet, Joe? Here's a quick hint: type in "characteristics of living things" into your favorite search engine!
I have pets. I have two cats upstairs that feed on a baptist chained up in the basement.
BBarr: "I am a reductionist about life, because I think life is nothing over and above the presence of certain physical properties in an object or entity"
BBarr: "If you think my views are reductionist, then you either don't know what the term 'reductionist' means, or you don't know what my philosophical views are."
Please, let's not get carried away and keep things crystal clear here, shall we ?
Life from non-life?
31 May '05 23:10
Back to Top