Why Do We Distinguish Between Living and Non-Living?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Time to get out the fancy words huh? Well, you're the one complaining about not having a "working model" of life which, is entirely untrue. In fact, the study of life at the biological cellular level accounts for just about every form of life that we know of -- if, I'm not mistaken?

And would you like to stay in the current state of knowledge forever? If there is life that is non-cellular, it is because "life" actually means something. If there is no life that is non-cellular, then there is no real meaning to "life", except "that which is cellular in composition". And besides, I already mentioned AI computers. They could be considered "alive" if we could just decide on what it means. But they will never attain to "life" (even if they attain to sentient consciousness!) if we stick to the cellular definition.

Who said anything about life on other planets?

I did...it's a reasonable example, I think...

That isn't the same thing as saying we don't have a working model.

It's not the same thing, but failing to discover "life" on other planets could end up being simply because we have no working definiton thereof (since this extraterrestrial life might not be cellular).

Besides, it will probably be a long time in waiting before we can even begin to explore life on other planets. While in the meantime, why shouldn't we take advantage of the whole wealth of resources at our disposal right here on this planet?

This is philosophy...we're allowed to think into the future, aren't we?

Says who? And why is it so necessary to create life artificially?

Because we can't create it otherwise. Anything "man-made" is "artificial", by definition. Besides, it is necessary because the versitility of a living, conscious, being may be necessary even in circumstance that human bodies cannot bear...and that's just one reason, I'm sure there are others.

 

[Rader]

Life is consciousness

Life has a a prerequisite, consciousness. Anything that was conscious would be aware of it, on its own level of consciousness.
So using as a postulate Life is consciousness, then we can determine what is alive. The problem of determination of what is alive depends upon observation of levels. Awareness on the atomic level, denotes a type of consciousness. Conscious atoms would then denote life. So then the universe is conscious and everyting in it, its just a matter of perception.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Life has a a prerequisite, consciousness. Anything that was conscious would be aware of it, on its own level of consciousness.

How do you know this?

So using as a postulate Life is consciousness, then we can determine what is alive. The problem of determination of what is alive depends upon observation of levels. Awareness on the atomic level, denotes a tye of consciousness. Consciousness atoms would then denote life. So then the universe is consciouss and everyting in it, its just a matter of perception.

Is this completely speculative, or do you have something to back it up?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
How do you know this?

Well first you could start by reading the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10629
especially the post of onycho.

Is this completely speculative, or do you have something to back it up?

Mentate first we need to agree on some parameters for the discussion.
Would you agree?
01=There are no proofs.
02=We are both sane and are aware of it?
03=Knowing is evidence of it.
04=Knowledge changes over time.
05=We are alive.
06=We are conscious and aware of it.`

I would like to discuss this with you read the thread and the posts first, then we can discuss the below.

Life has a a prerequisite, consciousness. Anything that was conscious would be aware of it, on its own level of consciousness.
So using as a postulate Life is consciousness, then we can determine what is alive. The problem of determination of what is alive depends upon observation of levels. Awareness on the atomic level, denotes a tye of consciousness. Conscious atoms would then denote life. So then the universe is conscious and everyting in it, its just a matter of perception.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Well first you could start by reading the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showth...;threadid=10629
especially the post of onycho.

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.

Mentate first we need to agree on some parameters for the discussion.
Would you agree?
01=There are no proofs.

I agree that there are no certain proofs, but that does not excuse the use of utter speculation as though it were on equal grounds with theories formed from empirical data.

02=We are both sane and are aware of it?

Define "sane"...then tell me the relevance.

03=Knowing is evidence of it.

Knowing is evidence of what?

04=Knowledge changes over time.

If you were wrong in the first place, yes. You seem to hold "knowledge" as meaning "common knowledge", or "that which everybody 'knows'". If so, then yes, knowledge does change over time.

05=We are alive.

A useless distinction, IMO, but I suppose I am alive by biological standards. I'll take the philosophical leap and assume that you too are alive .

06=We are conscious and aware of it.`

It is indisputable that I am conscious and aware of it; you, OTOH, I have no "proof" (as per point #1) that forces me to believe that you are also conscious, but I'll take it for granted.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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?

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[radagast]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Rader]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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...

 

[yxgao]

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.

 

[yxgao]

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.

 

[Mentat]

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)?