Why Call it "Alive"? Exploring Life's Definition

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
In summary: life has no definable characteristics, we can only come up with a working definition that excludes those things that are clearly not living, while including those things that may be living but we do not have a good enough understanding of to say for sure.

Which choice do you prefer?

  • Forget the whole living/non-living distinction; it's useless.

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • Devise a working definition for "alive"; it is an important distinction.

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • Use one of the definitions that already exist, and accept the consequences.

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • other...

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21
  • #36


Originally posted by Mentat
I saw nothing of relevance there. Onycho completely misinterpreted a quantum even, just as so many have done before him, and will do after him. It's nothing new. The fact remains that there is no proof to back up the idea that consciousness exists at "all levels" as you imply; and there's plenty of proof against it.

Your eating your own words. I said nothing about proofs. That was the first rule to agree to. When you are in a better mood we will talk about it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37


Originally posted by Rader
Your eating your own words. I said nothing about proofs. That was the first rule to agree to. When you are in a better mood we will talk about it.

Actually, I was in a fine mood, but mood is not easily interpreted over this medium. I apologize, if I seemed irritated or offensive.

Anyway, I never said there were no proofs, simply no certain ones. Onycho was trying to use science to promote an idea that the science has already disproven (IMHO). Science consists of proofs (however uncertain they may be), and there are no such proofs behind Onycho's assesment, and a few against it.
 
  • #38


Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, I was in a fine mood, but mood is not easily interpreted over this medium. I apologize, if I seemed irritated or offensive.

Anyway, I never said there were no proofs, simply no certain ones. Onycho was trying to use science to promote an idea that the science has already disproven (IMHO). Science consists of proofs (however uncertain they may be), and there are no such proofs behind Onycho's assesment, and a few against it.

Are not no certain proofs, just substantial evidence by the observers.. Substantial evidence by observers is knowledge that could change over time. At any rate you should stick to what you know and not try to debunk what Onycho's assesment is. How can you know what anothers conscious awareness level is in interpreting data.
9-1 does not mean, that you got a proof, only a good chance, you could be wrong. The debate on life=consciousness is only beginning. One thing is for sure, when a new paradigm is set it will change a whole of things. I do not mean to ruffle your feathers but i like your dog bitting answers.
 
  • #39


Originally posted by Rader
Are not no certain proofs, just substantial evidence by the observers.. Substantial evidence by observers is knowledge that could change over time. At any rate you should stick to what you know and not try to debunk what Onycho's assesment is. How can you know what anothers conscious awareness level is in interpreting data.
9-1 does not mean, that you got a proof, only a good chance, you could be wrong. The debate on life=consciousness is only beginning. One thing is for sure, when a new paradigm is set it will change a whole of things.

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
 
  • #40


Originally posted by Mentat
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:
Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on Earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.

The simplest model is more likely to be correct--especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon.

The more likely means most likely, almost for sure, not that it is infallible.
 
  • #41


Originally posted by Rader The simplest model is more likely to be correct--especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon.

Occams razor, as well as the simplest model say nothing about likelyhood of being correct. Occams razor is about the most rational default position.
 
  • #42


Originally posted by Rader
This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:
Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on Earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.

The simplest model is more likely to be correct--especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon.

The more likely means most likely, almost for sure, not that it is infallible.

Good enough explanation. Now, can you see how adding this new panpsychism (the idea that consciousness exists at "all levels") would be an added assumption with no basis. Occam's Razor doesn't really say that the theory with less assumptions is better. Rather, it states that the theory that explains the phenomenon to the greatest level of accuracy is correct, but if there are two theories that are equally accurate (rather, explain the phenomenon with equal accuracy) then the one with the least assumptions is better.
 
  • #43


Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough explanation. Now, can you see how adding this new panpsychism (the idea that consciousness exists at "all levels") would be an added assumption with no basis. Occam's Razor doesn't really say that the theory with less assumptions is better. Rather, it states that the theory that explains the phenomenon to the greatest level of accuracy is correct, but if there are two theories that are equally accurate (rather, explain the phenomenon with equal accuracy) then the one with the least assumptions is better.

There is the basis of observation that gives evidence. To do what is observed has the following explantion. That(the idea that consciousness exists at "all levels")If atoms can make a choice and all things are constructed of atoms, where does that leave things? The tecknology is at a point in history to verify these things. When the experimental data is good enough, then will the paradigm of consciousness change. Maybe they will find the way to put a pin number on a photon and divise a way to make it choose its path. Then the equation of consciousnes=life will be answered.
It sure has got a lot of people jeans rattaled, to know that some, have come up with an alternatice explanation for quantum bizarre activity.
 
  • #44


Originally posted by radagast
Occams razor, as well as the simplest model say nothing about likelyhood of being correct. Occams razor is about the most rational default position.

Why do you assume that consciouness is a irrational default position? There appears to be conscious awareness on the quantum level. It appears to be the most simplest explanation. Serious scientific examintion would not be going on, if somebody did not think there was evidence of it.
 
  • #45


Originally posted by Rader
There is the basis of observation that gives evidence. To do what is observed has the following explantion. That(the idea that consciousness exists at "all levels")If atoms can make a choice and all things are constructed of atoms, where does that leave things? The tecknology is at a point in history to verify these things. When the experimental data is good enough, then will the paradigm of consciousness change. Maybe they will find the way to put a pin number on a photon and divise a way to make it choose its path. Then the equation of consciousnes=life will be answered.
It sure has got a lot of people jeans rattaled, to know that some, have come up with an alternatice explanation for quantum bizarre activity.

I couldn't understand all of this, but are you saying that technological/scientific study may yield the results that you predict? I completely agree with you. However, until they do, it is an added assumption since QM works fine without it.
 
  • #46


Originally posted by Mentat
I couldn't understand all of this, but are you saying that technological/scientific study may yield the results that you predict? I completely agree with you. However, until they do, it is an added assumption since QM works fine without it.

I am not predicting anything. Technological/scientific study will. The studies and observtions going on in serious tests, are doing the predicting. I understand the scientific method. Thought, assumption, thesis, theory, observation, testing, confirmation of probable evidence. Mentate that is a bad excuse to say it works fine. We are trying to solve the biggest enigma of all time CONSCIOUSNESS. With a correct understanding of it, there will be quantum human leaps in consciuousness. The pitbull approach will be over.
 
  • #47


Originally posted by Rader
Technological/scientific study will. The studies and observtions going on in serious tests, are doing the predicting. I understand the scientific method. Thought, assumption, thesis, theory, observation, testing, confirmation of probable evidence.

Actually, move observation back to the beginning, and remove "thought", and you will have the Method.

Mentate that is a bad excuse to say it works fine. We are trying to solve the biggest enigma of all time CONSCIOUSNESS.

But there are other theories that could solve it, and these don't challenge any previous assumptions by making their own, the work inside the Method...I think this is better. At least, it's better for scientific pursuit.

I am not predicting anything...

...With a correct understanding of it, there will be quantum human leaps in consciuousness. The pitbull approach will be over.

Hmm...:wink:
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Njorl
My wife and I argue about whether something is blue or not.
Njorl

Isn't it possible to precisely define a color, even if it has not been done before? It is possible to specify a range of wavelengths of light that would define the color blue. There may be different shades of blue and certain different subtleties but I believe it is possible to define blue.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Royce
I think it important that science comes up with a working definition of what life, being alive, is because accurately defining it would lead to better understanding it and help in its study. Not just for knowledge's sake but for all of lifes sake. Who knows it may lead to saving lives.

I agree with this. In addition, there IS a general working definition of believe alive. Why not just use the definition that biologists use. There are always going to be exceptions. But a working definition is necessary for better scientific understanding. For now, a classifications system that works for most things should suffice even if there are exceptions. These exceptions may be due to misunderstanding that can be cleared up by future research. For instance, perhaps future generations will improve on the current definitions and eventually will create one that accounts for all the exceptions.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by yxgao
I agree with this. In addition, there IS a general working definition of believe alive. Why not just use the definition that biologists use. There are always going to be exceptions. But a working definition is necessary for better scientific understanding. For now, a classifications system that works for most things should suffice even if there are exceptions.

But what good is a classification system, where neither of the contrasted terms are defined/definable?

What use is it to me to make a fallacious distinction between that which is "gloobolobular" and that which isn't (I'm just using gibberish to illustrate the uselessness of an undefined word)?
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
854
Replies
1
Views
850
Replies
5
Views
840
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
802
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
539
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top