Religion

[RSK]

just take a look at this


[url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/942624900.Gb.r.html[/url]

[Mish]

WOW, this is a very interesting post. But your words are skewed...

...let me explain...

what you wrote in paranthesis is very blurry to me. what does that MEAN?

To program a computer to automate the processes?

to program is a very vague verb

the word, computer, of course brings up a new dimension or angle

and of course, the MOST controversial word of them all, is proccesses; what TYPE of 'processes' do you speak of?

Parenthesis:

We can program a computer with information on how to feed the blood cells pumped by an artificial heart and passing through the artifical artieries on regular basis to regulate their growth.

So, do we now have a lifeform?

[Mish]

just take a look at this


[url]http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/942624900.Gb.r.html[/url]

Hahahaha

I acutally liked this

So fire is also a form of life?

[RSK]

Parenthesis:

We can program a computer with information on how to feed the blood cells pumped by an artificial heart and passing through the artifical artieries on regular basis to regulate their growth.

So, do we now have a lifeform?

lol, this is too much...

does this 'computer' require a 'battery' to work? if it DOES, then the answer is No...


well, in my opinion, NO...


somebody else had to 'input' the information 'into' the computer... the computer did not produce from 'another' computer...

and if it DID (as you say), SOMEONE must have 'created' the initial computer...


i've read a bit on AI, and up to date, it's a failed theory, a lot of money has gone into it, but not much results...

[RSK]

Hahahaha

I acutally liked this

So fire is also a form of life?

this is the part you should be concerned with:

The Meaning of LIFE -

Starting from a Biological Viewpoint

The 1997 Random House College Dictionary defines life as:

"The general condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms,

being manifested by

growth through metabolism,

a means of reproduction,

and internal regulation in response to the environment."


Similarly, the 1982 American Heritage Dictionary defines life as:

"The property or quality maintained in functions such as

metabolism,

growth,

response to stimulation, and

reproduction,

by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or from inanimate matter".


So, both of these definitions are similar - life is a property, quality, or condition that includes metabolism, growth, response to the environment or to stimulation, and reproduction. Let's clarify these a bit :

Metabolism: "...chemical and physical processes...by which its substance is produced, maintained and destroyed, and by which energy is made available" (Random House College Dictionary again)
Growth: a gradual increase in size, perhaps to a maximum
Response to the environment or stimulation: as things around the living thing change, the living thing tried to adapt to stay alive; if it cannot adapt enough to the change, the living thing may die
Reproduction: the form of life can give rise to another, similar form of life.
Now, most of the things we think of as alive meet those four requirements. We human beings have chemical and physical processes, like breathing and moving our arms and legs. While plants don't breathe, nor move arms and legs, they have chemical processes that use light to make food (photosynthesis) and have physical processes to move water inside, for example.

We human beings grow, until we stop growing. So do plants, and so do single cell organisms such as bacteria.

We human beings respond to the environment. Plants do, too, though often at a slower rate than animals, and often in very different ways - like gradually growing towards light. And, in the extreme case, human beings die, and plants die.

We also reproduce, as do plants, and bacteria. Some living things are incapable of reproduction. For example, mules are sterile - a mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, but cannot reproduce itself.

[Mish]

lol, this is too much...

does this 'computer' require a 'battery' to work? if it DOES, then the answer is No...


well, in my opinion, NO...


somebody else had to 'input' the information 'into' the computer... the computer did not produce from 'another' computer...

and if it DID (as you say), SOMEONE must have 'created' the initial computer...


i've read a bit on AI, and up to date, it's a failed theory, a lot of money has gone into it, but not much results...

Too much??? This is only the beginning

Why not?

The computer can have a battery that is charged via a replinishable power source such as the sun, so the power supply can be completely independant from the human interferance. And even if it wasn't and the intial computer was created by a human, why doesn't it still clasify as a lifeform. It has blood which the computer control, the blood has DNA so it meets all of your basic Biological guidelines.

Dolly the sheep was created by a human in a lab, do you clasiffy Dolly the sheep as not alive?

AI is everywhere around you. It has not failed, it is the infrastructure of all of our crucial systems. AI systems are now in routine use in economics, medicine, engineering and the military What makes you say it is a failed experiment??? It is everywhere around you today.

[Mish]

this is the part you should be concerned with:

The Meaning of LIFE -

Starting from a Biological Viewpoint

The 1997 Random House College Dictionary defines life as:

"The general condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms,

being manifested by

growth through metabolism,

a means of reproduction,

and internal regulation in response to the environment."


Similarly, the 1982 American Heritage Dictionary defines life as:

"The property or quality maintained in functions such as

metabolism,

growth,

response to stimulation, and

reproduction,

by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or from inanimate matter".


So, both of these definitions are similar - life is a property, quality, or condition that includes metabolism, growth, response to the environment or to stimulation, and reproduction. Let's clarify these a bit :

Metabolism: "...chemical and physical processes...by which its substance is produced, maintained and destroyed, and by which energy is made available" (Random House College Dictionary again)
Growth: a gradual increase in size, perhaps to a maximum
Response to the environment or stimulation: as things around the living thing change, the living thing tried to adapt to stay alive; if it cannot adapt enough to the change, the living thing may die
Reproduction: the form of life can give rise to another, similar form of life.
Now, most of the things we think of as alive meet those four requirements. We human beings have chemical and physical processes, like breathing and moving our arms and legs. While plants don't breathe, nor move arms and legs, they have chemical processes that use light to make food (photosynthesis) and have physical processes to move water inside, for example.

We human beings grow, until we stop growing. So do plants, and so do single cell organisms such as bacteria.

We human beings respond to the environment. Plants do, too, though often at a slower rate than animals, and often in very different ways - like gradually growing towards light. And, in the extreme case, human beings die, and plants die.

We also reproduce, as do plants, and bacteria. Some living things are incapable of reproduction. For example, mules are sterile - a mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, but cannot reproduce itself.

Yes I read that

AND



According to those definitions fire is a life form

DUM DUM

Metabolism: A flame does involve chemical processes - in particular, oxidation. It also has physical processes that move the air in and out along certain paths:

Growth: Let's come back to that with reproduction in a moment.


Response to the environment or stimulation: If you put a flame in a container that cuts off the flow of air, or suction the air upwards, the flame will seem to try to reach upwards or in a new direction for air. If you gently blow on a flame from one direction, it will seem to try to adapt to this environmental change. In the extreme case, a flame will die.


Ponder that a bit. Shakespeare used flame as an analogy of life in his works - describing the shortness of human life in the words, "...Out, out, brief candle.."Other writers and poets similarly have used the death of a flame as an analogy to the death of other lifeforms. If FIRE is not a form of LIFE, why does a FIRE die?


Reproduction: If you put a candle with a flame in one spot, and bring another candle's wick in contact with the flame - a new flame is born! Moreover, the new flame starts out small, then grows until it reaches about the same size as the other flame - so, in addition to reproduction, we have Growth as well, which I postponed discussing earlier.

In fact, some people spend a good deal of effort preventing the reproduction or spread of fires, in forests or in buildings. If fires do not grow or reproduce, why do we need to prevent forest fires and why do we need firemen?


Some people have tried to refine the definition of life, to deal with the issue that fire meets most of the requirements for the standard definition of life.

[RSK]

you know, i've learned a lot today....


i initially said that we are from different schools of thought. that you are from the school of science fiction, and i from the school of science...






i think i may have got it wrong...


.....i'm from the 'old' school, and you from then 'new' school...........

......yeah, i've learned quite a bit today




i don't know too much about AI. well, maybe i can open my eyes to it, thx for providing me with the 'torch', the rest is up to me to do some research of my own





maybe one day, our lives will meet, and we will work TOGETHER, and combine Computer technology and Biology on a NEW level, something HIGHER and MORE advanced than AI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol



well, i guess the fundamental question is: What defines LIFE? not even biologist have figured it out. i mean, those requirements i listed are ALSO disputed among bioilogists, mainly because the 'virus' doesn't fit into the definition....



....i guess there can NEVER be a defining theory on what life IS... it's all relative, and it's all based on perception...


....it's funny, we are here debating, (which is a good thing), but the very foundations upon which we are both debating on, are skewed itself,


i'm telling you one thing, and you are telling me another, on the basis of DIFFERENT foudations and schools of thought.......




.......well, two heads ARE better than ONE...........and it's always nice to hear something from another angle, MISH you seem to be VERY passionate about AI, i hope this passion motivates you further in your interests




see ya partner

i'm out, gotta eat dinner

[RSK]

Yes I read that

AND



According to those definitions fire is a life form

DUM DUM

Metabolism: A flame does involve chemical processes - in particular, oxidation. It also has physical processes that move the air in and out along certain paths:

Growth: Let's come back to that with reproduction in a moment.


Response to the environment or stimulation: If you put a flame in a container that cuts off the flow of air, or suction the air upwards, the flame will seem to try to reach upwards or in a new direction for air. If you gently blow on a flame from one direction, it will seem to try to adapt to this environmental change. In the extreme case, a flame will die.


Ponder that a bit. Shakespeare used flame as an analogy of life in his works - describing the shortness of human life in the words, "...Out, out, brief candle.."Other writers and poets similarly have used the death of a flame as an analogy to the death of other lifeforms. If FIRE is not a form of LIFE, why does a FIRE die?


Reproduction: If you put a candle with a flame in one spot, and bring another candle's wick in contact with the flame - a new flame is born! Moreover, the new flame starts out small, then grows until it reaches about the same size as the other flame - so, in addition to reproduction, we have Growth as well, which I postponed discussing earlier.

In fact, some people spend a good deal of effort preventing the reproduction or spread of fires, in forests or in buildings. If fires do not grow or reproduce, why do we need to prevent forest fires and why do we need firemen?


Some people have tried to refine the definition of life, to deal with the issue that fire meets most of the requirements for the standard definition of life.

well, it's true you know. even though i posted the list of criteria 'that defines life', this is just ONE example why it cannot...........


having said that, the reasoning of the fire thing is just ridiculous....


.......a fundamental component of life is complexity and order, of which a fire has NONE....



i hope this post of mine doesn't cycle us again to square one, it's just that i wanted to make clear that FIRE cannot be considered a life form based on the four or five requirements described above......


.......the site i posted was using a grade school type example, that's all.....





......andyways, i'm out


EDIT: and i forgot to add, the link goes on to say why fire CANNOT be considered life


(and it's the same line of reasoning as above)

you didn't read the entire link..........lol



Some people have tried to refine the definition of life, to deal with the issue that fire meets most of the requirements for the standard definition of life. However, let's try to handle this a different way.


Let's assume that FIRE is in fact a form of life - the least complex form of life. Just as matter is made up of molecules, which are made of atoms, which in turn are made of subatomic particles -- let's take the range of life, and break it down into similar levels of complexity.


Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles ?/TD>
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes ?/TD>


As we proceed from left to write in this table, we are proceeding into the things that make up the things to the left. Organisms are made of organ systems, organ systems are made of organs, and so on.


Now, let's ask whether we can extend this table a bit. Is there a lower form of life, below the subcellular, below the organelles like ribosomes that make up cells? Ribosomes are large molecules that make proteins. This is a chemical process...just as fire is a chemical process, oxidation. So, perhaps we can put chemical and physical processes, which are involved in the definition of metabolism, to the right of organelles:

Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles Metabolism: Chemical and Physical Processes
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes Ex: Oxidation ( FIRE), manufacture of proteins, copying of DNA

[Mish]

I'm glad

I must say it has been a mutually learning experience, I think I should do a bit more reading on biology, oh and before you go, you might be interested to read a little bit on this:

[url]http://www.cyberkineticsinc.com/content/medicalproducts/braingate.jsp[/url]

What will they think of next, eh???



Well, I guess it's back to you now Indi, so where were we?

[RSK]

this thread, is officially mine, mish's, and indi's debate thread...

[Mish]

well, it's true you know. even though i posted the list of criteria 'that defines life', this is just ONE example why it cannot...........


having said that, the reasoning of the fire thing is just ridiculous....


.......a fundamental component of life is complexity and order, of which a fire has NONE....



i hope this post of mine doesn't cycle us again to square one, it's just that i wanted to make clear that FIRE cannot be considered a life form based on the four or five requirements described above......


.......the site i posted was using a grade school type example, that's all.....





......andyways, i'm out


EDIT: and i forgot to add, the link goes on to say why fire CANNOT be considered life


(and it's the same line of reasoning as above)

you didn't read the entire link..........lol



Some people have tried to refine the definition of life, to deal with the issue that fire meets most of the requirements for the standard definition of life. However, let's try to handle this a different way.


Let's assume that FIRE is in fact a form of life - the least complex form of life. Just as matter is made up of molecules, which are made of atoms, which in turn are made of subatomic particles -- let's take the range of life, and break it down into similar levels of complexity.


Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles ?/TD>
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes ?/TD>


As we proceed from left to write in this table, we are proceeding into the things that make up the things to the left. Organisms are made of organ systems, organ systems are made of organs, and so on.


Now, let's ask whether we can extend this table a bit. Is there a lower form of life, below the subcellular, below the organelles like ribosomes that make up cells? Ribosomes are large molecules that make proteins. This is a chemical process...just as fire is a chemical process, oxidation. So, perhaps we can put chemical and physical processes, which are involved in the definition of metabolism, to the right of organelles:

Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles Metabolism: Chemical and Physical Processes
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes Ex: Oxidation ( FIRE), manufacture of proteins, copying of DNA

RK, I'm sorry to disappoint you but the last bit actually does argue that fire is a life form LOL.

Read this bit very carefully:

Now, let's ask whether we can extend this table a bit. Is there a lower form of life, below the subcellular, below the organelles like ribosomes that make up cells? Ribosomes are large molecules that make proteins. This is a chemical process...just as fire is a chemical process, oxidation. So, perhaps we can put chemical and physical processes, which are involved in the definition of metabolism, to the right of organelles:

Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles Metabolism: Chemical and Physical Processes
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes Ex: Oxidation ( FIRE), manufacture of proteins, copying of DNA

This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the above statement. Just pointing out the PARADOX in the above descriptions of what life is, from the link provided by YOU

[Rosebud]

OMG!!! I had to come in here to see what all the fuss was about, and good Lord you guys? Debate much? I think after reading all that, I'm going to stay out of this one.

[RSK]

RK, I'm sorry to disappoint you but the last bit actually does argue that fire is a life form LOL.

Read this bit very carefully:

Now, let's ask whether we can extend this table a bit. Is there a lower form of life, below the subcellular, below the organelles like ribosomes that make up cells? Ribosomes are large molecules that make proteins. This is a chemical process...just as fire is a chemical process, oxidation. So, perhaps we can put chemical and physical processes, which are involved in the definition of metabolism, to the right of organelles:

Organisms Organ Systems Organs Tissues Cells Subcellular: Organelles Metabolism: Chemical and Physical Processes
Ex: Human being, Dog Ex: Digestive System, Respiratory System Ex: Intestines, Lungs, Heart Ex: Epithelial tissue in intestines Ex: Epithelial cells Ex: Mitochondria, Ribosomes Ex: Oxidation ( FIRE), manufacture of proteins, copying of DNA

This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the above statement. Just pointing out the PARADOX in the above descriptions of what life is, from the link provided by YOU

ok, MISH, eat your own words: nobody would call a 'ribosome' a form of LIFE, let alone anything to the 'right' of this heirrarchy......

........you missed the point.


roseb, yeah, my head is spinning too, talking to MISH is like talking to a wall

[Mish]

ok, MISH, eat your own words:

They are not my words, they are words from the link you posted I was pointing out their point of view not mine and how paradoxical this point of view can be

Aww, RK, you disappoint me. After finally agreeing with me on some critical issues and winning tonnes of my respect for you, you now compare me to a wall

...Unless

You are suggesting that a wall is a form of life???