 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Dawkins and the design of Life... |
|
Page 14 of 16 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Yap... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 10, 9:59 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:36:49 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hd7dl7$fn... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:40:06 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcslaj$6n... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:41:34 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcq82e$f3... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:05:24 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcmed8$n5... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:02:51 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcjtd3$fi... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Nomen Publicus wrote:
In sci.skeptic John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:10:52 +0000, in alt.atheism , John Jones
jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> in
hcfh86$8m... at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design?
How about you try to define "design" in a way that makes sense of that
sentence.
Yes. A design is a blue-print, and not a realisation of that blue-print.
Dawkins must put his question on design in this way:
Rather than say that life is merely designed, Dawkins should say that
life is not realised or manifested through a design of God,
But once he argues that, then Dawkins is committed to the idea that
design identifies life.
No. I think you will find that "life" is recognised by behaviour rather
than by appearence. If it eats, shits, grows and reproduces then it's
probably alive. Viruses are borderline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Dawkins can't talk about life unless he has a design or template for
life, a template that allows him to recognise life and talk about it.
Behaviour isn't a physical description.
When you find some non-physical behavior let us know.
Theft, murder, partying, sailing, singing, etc. All these are not given
through a physical description.
All of those are physical things. We can describe them as well.
Their physical summation doesn't describe them.
I don't have a clue what you mean here. They are physical, *we*
describe things.
You need something else
to distinguish a murder from a mercy killing.
Yes, a subjective judgment by humans.
But I
don't grasp what you might mean by "given through a physical
description". I know the meaning of each of the words, but together
they make no sense.
I mean that acts and behaviours, designs and blueprints, are not
physical descriptions.
Some actions and behaviors are descriptions. But that is not what you
mean. We people make descriptions of things.
We can give a physical description of a set of
flowers but it won't describe or give us the design we call a bouquet.
Yep, descriptions are not the thing described, the map is not the
territory.
A physical description of a set of flowers in front of you do not make a
bouquet no matter how they are arranged.
I just said that.
The manifestation of a bouquet
is not physical.
You had better explain what "manifestation" means in your ontology. If
it means description, then you are, as a matter of fact, wrong.
Descriptions are physical, whether they exist as words in a book or
mental states in a brain. The "manifestation" of a bouquet of flowers
is not the bouquet of flowers, but it is still a physical thing.
If manifestation means something other than description, then please
explain it.
A bouquet isn't another physical property of a set of flowers. In order
to see a bouquet in a set of flowers the bouquet must appear
independently of them.
OK, so me a bouquet independent of its flowers.
No matter how much you arrange a set of flowers,
you don't get a bouquet from the flowers alone.
Really now? How so?
Flowers are a necessary condition for a bouquet. But the bouquet is a
sufficient condition for the flowers.
The bouquet is not a physically measurable property that is added to the
set of flowers. The presence of a bouquet can't be physically dependent
on a set of flowers because a bouquet isn't a physical property of a set
of flowers.
[/quote]
That is because a bouquet has no set definition.
However, if needed, then a physical property can be assigned to it.
Such as a bouquet must have 10 flowers....as one property physically. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yap... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 11, 6:17 am, Hatunen <hatu... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:26:12 -0800 (PST), Yap
hhyaps... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:46 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
I call "a rock on Mars and my shoes" the properties of Life. As far as I
can tell then, there is life in the universe and it is very big.
Are you a rock then?
The definition has to be accepted by all in order to have a common
meaning.
The old story that purports to be about Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln: If we called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog
have?
Witness: Five, of course.
Lincoln: No. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu... at (no spam) cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
[/quote]
Hahahaha.........
But why would Lincoln set his condition up front to contradict himself
or to make a fool of himself? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 11, 4:04 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 10, 8:19 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
But what is the chance of that grain of sand in the Sahara, evolving
into a Long-tailed Honey-buzzard? 
If you dispute the Copenhagen interpretation of wave function collapse
due to observation, and accept the many Worlds Interpretation, then
there is a universe for each possible particle state.
I guess evolution of a grain of sand to anything and everything may
be possible in the "many Words Interpretation". Oops! was that a
Freudian typo?
[/quote]
Yes! and it is a question of metaphysical interest only as we have no
means to retrace our steps in the "Machiavellian Watchmaker Ignored"
Oops! No it wasn't |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 12, 11:38 am, Yap <hhyaps... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 10, 9:21 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You can't use the properties of life list and say, This Koala's
REPRODUCTION capability has just expired, or this bugs HOMEOSTATIC
capability is pushing up daisies.
What dies? Anybody?
The biological living cells in a life form die.
That's all to it
[/quote]
You seem to be exceptionally gifted at pointing out the obvious.
Does one cell die, then all the others follow, like lemmings over a
cliff?
Does a particular property of life die, then all the other properties
follow?
What is the trigger?
If you don't know from a biological perspective then please don't
bother responding with banal platitudes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 12, 3:11 am, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 4:04 pm,Zinnic<zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
On Nov 10, 8:19 am,Errol<vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 3:18 pm,Zinnic<zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
What are the odds against a given grain of sand being in its present
position in the Sahara desert?
What are the odds against every atom in the Universe being in its
present state ?
Actualization trumps all odds!
But what is the chance of that grain of sand in the Sahara, evolving
into a Long-tailed Honey-buzzard?
If you dispute the Copenhagen interpretation of wave function collapse
due to observation, and accept the many Worlds Interpretation, then
there is a universe for each possible particle state.
I guess evolution of a grain of sand to anything and everything may
be possible in the "many Words Interpretation". Oops! was that a
Freudian typo?
Such a universe eliminates the need for time because it contains every
possibility, every action and possible consequence.
What are the odds of living out a "narrative" by picking your way
through such a complex compacted universe for 50 + years?
"Such a Universe", where anything and everything is possible, leaves
no room for questions or answers". It eliminates the relevance of any
discussion! :-)
Why? No matter what path we take through this MWI universe, the
actualisation remains 1:1
It elimates the need to compute the odds of anything happening which
actually strengthens your argument against the huge odds required for
life to evolve.
It also removes the need for the Copenhagen Interpretation in which
the observer "creates" the universe moment by moment.
I also like the idea that somewhere, in some remote parallel universe,
I could be Hugh Heffner.- Hide quoted text -
Keep your aspidstra flyingll Hugh Hefner of a different Universe may[/quote]
actually be you in this Universe. Enjoy!  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 10, 7:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 4:50 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:22 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But I need to know what it is about life that made you look for those
properties only. Because at the moment all you have done is select
people instead of rocks, without saying why.
Because those are the properties commonly held by objects that are
popularly considered to be alive. This classification was little more
than taking a popular concept and codifying it.
No, it was exactly what we did. We took a popular concept and then set
about looking for properties.
From where came the concept?
[/quote]
Us. We came up with it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 5:50 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:22 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But I need to know what it is about life that made you look for those
properties only. Because at the moment all you have done is select
people instead of rocks, without saying why.
Because those are the properties commonly held by objects that are
popularly considered to be alive. This classification was little more
than taking a popular concept and codifying it.
No, it was exactly what we did. We took a popular concept and then set
about looking for properties.
[/quote]
Ok. So what's the problem? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 5:46 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:48 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 11/8/09 4:33 PM, * John Jones wrote:
Zinnic wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables..
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
Zinnic
In order to account for life dawkins must make them distinct from
non-life. He can't do this merely by describing how one is a different
material process to the other.
That isn't a way of making them distinct?
No. "Life" is not a name given to a random set of properties. I can't
just say that "3,8, and 6 are life" and "7, 5, 3 are not life".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Actually you can and that is exactly what is done.
Then all you have said is that a name distinguishes one object from
another object. And one name will do as well as another.
Exactly.
I call "a rock on Mars and my shoes" the properties of Life. As far as I
can tell then, there is life in the universe and it is very big.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, life already has an established conception. It is
unlikely your new proposal will gain any acceptance.
[quote]
.
Except instead of
"3, 8, and 6" we use things like "homeostasis, metabolism,
repdroduction, growth, etc".
The definition of life is arbitrary.
If its arbitary then you could include any object or event whatever. You
could say that the lightbulb in my kitchen and a particular rock on Mars
together make a life form.
Only if scientists decide to include lightbulbs and rocks among what
is considered alive. They haven't.
You are confusing an issue here.
We each have a personal conception of life.
No. None of us has a personal conception of life because if we are able
to use the word at all then it must have a communal sense.
[/quote]
Indeed it must. That it has a communal sense does not negate it also
having a personal sense.
[quote]
When we look out into the
world we can distinguish between life and non-life. We distinguish
based upon personal experience with regards to how other people
distinguish life and non-life and develop our own personal template we
use.
Then there is the scientific definition of life.
Since we are talking about science here, all that matters is the
scientific definition.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yap wrote:
[quote]On Nov 10, 9:55 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Errol wrote:
On Nov 10, 12:46 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Exactly.
I call "a rock on Mars and my shoes" the properties of Life. As far as I
can tell then, there is life in the universe and it is very big.
"Exactly" means that the name is unimportant, but the meaning is
important.
There is no meaning to a random set of properties. They are just picked
at random and given a name.
No.
After you have picked the set and we accept it, there is the whole
meaning.
[/quote]
In this case the decision to accept what is picked isn't based on
anything that is picked.
[quote]
You can assign the properties of life to your shoes but not many
people outside the nuthouse will agree with you, unless there is
something about your shoes you aren't telling us about.
I am saying that the properties of my shoes ARE the properties of life.
Life is my shoes.
How would Dawkins argue against that? He can't.
No.
You have your own properties which you understand, not any one else.
Of course, in this respect, Dawkins would argue with you.
Just like if you say you are insane and you acted insane, who would
not agree with you that you are indeed insane.
I think you are looking for a definition that defines some unequivocal
quality such as life force or anima or soul, but Aristotle did that
over 2300 years ago. Other than tightening the definitions of the
characteristics of life, science has progessed no further in
discovering this illusive soul. Perhaps because it doesn't exist
If science has no model of life, then how can it say anything at all
about it? It can't list a set of properties of life if it hasn't a model
of life to guide them.
Of course science has a model for life.
[/quote]
Science has no model for life. Science relies on common agreements and
sentiments, and then assembles properties associated with that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 5:46 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:48 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 11/8/09 4:33 PM, * John Jones wrote:
Zinnic wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
Zinnic
In order to account for life dawkins must make them distinct from
non-life. He can't do this merely by describing how one is a different
material process to the other.
That isn't a way of making them distinct?
No. "Life" is not a name given to a random set of properties. I can't
just say that "3,8, and 6 are life" and "7, 5, 3 are not life".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Actually you can and that is exactly what is done.
Then all you have said is that a name distinguishes one object from
another object. And one name will do as well as another.
Exactly.
I call "a rock on Mars and my shoes" the properties of Life. As far as I
can tell then, there is life in the universe and it is very big.
Unfortunately, life already has an established conception. It is
unlikely your new proposal will gain any acceptance.
[/quote]
The conception of life isn't a list of properties. If it was, then it
would be indistinguishable from my mars shoes.
[quote].
Except instead of
"3, 8, and 6" we use things like "homeostasis, metabolism,
repdroduction, growth, etc".
The definition of life is arbitrary.
If its arbitary then you could include any object or event whatever. You
could say that the lightbulb in my kitchen and a particular rock on Mars
together make a life form.
Only if scientists decide to include lightbulbs and rocks among what
is considered alive. They haven't.
You are confusing an issue here.
We each have a personal conception of life.
No. None of us has a personal conception of life because if we are able
to use the word at all then it must have a communal sense.
Indeed it must. That it has a communal sense does not negate it also
having a personal sense.
[/quote]
The personal sense has no role in our language. Nothing can be made of
it (Witt). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yap wrote:
[quote]On Nov 10, 9:59 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Flowers are a necessary condition for a bouquet. But the bouquet is a
sufficient condition for the flowers.
The bouquet is not a physically measurable property that is added to the
set of flowers. The presence of a bouquet can't be physically dependent
on a set of flowers because a bouquet isn't a physical property of a set
of flowers.
That is because a bouquet has no set definition.
[/quote]
The bouquet defines the elements in a set. These set-elements are flowers.
[quote]However, if needed, then a physical property can be assigned to it.
Such as a bouquet must have 10 flowers....as one property physically.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Drafterman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 9, 5:50 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:22 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But I need to know what it is about life that made you look for those
properties only. Because at the moment all you have done is select
people instead of rocks, without saying why.
Because those are the properties commonly held by objects that are
popularly considered to be alive. This classification was little more
than taking a popular concept and codifying it.
No, it was exactly what we did. We took a popular concept and then set
about looking for properties.
Ok. So what's the problem?
[/quote]
A set of properties do not, themselves, define or show what the
properties are properties of. Without that showing, there can be no
selection of properties. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 12, 6:09 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:46 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:48 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
IAAH wrote:
On 11/8/09 4:33 PM, * John Jones wrote:
Zinnic wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:10 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Dawkins ridicules the idea of life being "designed".
But is Dawkins, in spite of himself, calling upon a superstitious
design
when he distinguishes a life-form from a non-life form?
How can Dawkins recognise a life-form if life-forms have no design? Not
even a life form makes the Dawkinian distinction between life and
non-life. After all, life-forms can treat all life forms and non-life
forms (including itself) as environmental, non-life, consumables.
So is Dawkins going proxy for God when he, Dawkins, makes a distinction
between life and non-life designs?
Dawkins and most of us make the distinction between life and non-life
in the same way as we make the distinction between day and non-day
(night).
Demanding an exact location of the transition point is simply being
John Jones!
Zinnic
In order to account for life dawkins must make them distinct from
non-life. He can't do this merely by describing how one is a different
material process to the other.
That isn't a way of making them distinct?
No. "Life" is not a name given to a random set of properties. I can't
just say that "3,8, and 6 are life" and "7, 5, 3 are not life".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Actually you can and that is exactly what is done.
Then all you have said is that a name distinguishes one object from
another object. And one name will do as well as another.
Exactly.
I call "a rock on Mars and my shoes" the properties of Life. As far as I
can tell then, there is life in the universe and it is very big.
Unfortunately, life already has an established conception. It is
unlikely your new proposal will gain any acceptance.
The conception of life isn't a list of properties. If it was, then it
would be indistinguishable from my mars shoes.
[/quote]
It's distinguishable because the list of properties that define life
excludes your mars shoes.
[quote]
.
Except instead of
"3, 8, and 6" we use things like "homeostasis, metabolism,
repdroduction, growth, etc".
The definition of life is arbitrary.
If its arbitary then you could include any object or event whatever. You
could say that the lightbulb in my kitchen and a particular rock on Mars
together make a life form.
Only if scientists decide to include lightbulbs and rocks among what
is considered alive. They haven't.
You are confusing an issue here.
We each have a personal conception of life.
No. None of us has a personal conception of life because if we are able
to use the word at all then it must have a communal sense.
Indeed it must. That it has a communal sense does not negate it also
having a personal sense.
The personal sense has no role in our language. Nothing can be made of
it (Witt).
[/quote]
Completely incorrect. Language couldn't function if we didn't have a
personal conception of the words being used. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Drafterman... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 12, 6:14 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:50 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:22 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But I need to know what it is about life that made you look for those
properties only. Because at the moment all you have done is select
people instead of rocks, without saying why.
Because those are the properties commonly held by objects that are
popularly considered to be alive. This classification was little more
than taking a popular concept and codifying it.
No, it was exactly what we did. We took a popular concept and then set
about looking for properties.
Ok. So what's the problem?
A set of properties do not, themselves, define or show what the
properties are properties of. Without that showing, there can be no
selection of properties.
[/quote]
This is complete jibberish.
We observe reality.
We see the differences between things based on sensory input and the
patterns they form. (Color, shape, size, movement, etc).
Life, as defined by science, is a collection of these properties used
as an arbitrary line for the purposes of convenience.
It is irrelevant whether or not you think this is possible: it's
already in place. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dan Listermann... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hdi4r8$7vq$6 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:50 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
Drafterman wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:22 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
But I need to know what it is about life that made you look for those
properties only. Because at the moment all you have done is select
people instead of rocks, without saying why.
Because those are the properties commonly held by objects that are
popularly considered to be alive. This classification was little more
than taking a popular concept and codifying it.
No, it was exactly what we did. We took a popular concept and then set
about looking for properties.
Ok. So what's the problem?
A set of properties do not, themselves, define or show what the properties
are properties of. Without that showing, there can be no selection of
properties.
[/quote]
Who is on first? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:23 am
|
|