Alive vs. Dead and the meaning of meaning

reply to post by tgidkp


Interesting.

All life on this planet relies on informational exchanges, on every level, between every system present in its structure, and every cell and molecule as well. Let me give you some examples. Your body needs to remove waste products from itself. In order to do that, the food you consume is stripped of its useful components by the digestive systems, and passes into waste removal areas, after being filtered. Your body tells your mind that waste products are present in the pre-exit position, and so your brain tells other parts of your body that they need to make moves to allow that waste to be removed in a timely, and tidy fashion. Limbs move, digits fumble at zips, belt buckles, limbs move again to allow one to sit down for number two, or position themselves correctly for optimal aim during a number one.

Just one part of that process requires massive transits of data, between the parts of the brain which register signals sent from the organs which govern digestion and waste management. On the molecular level, the process is even more complicated, because neurotransmitters have to be despatched in the correct order, to the correct places, to prevent messy underwear. These molecules are signals.

Going deeper again, atomically, the molecules of which we are made, which our bodies use to keep them functioning, are connected chains of atoms, and those atoms bond with others to make those molecules. The ionic or covalent bonding of these atoms into molecular chains, involves yet more informational exchange, on the sub-atomic scale. Electrons are either shared or transfered from one atom to another, in the electrostatic ballet that is atomic bonding. This again, can be considered as a transfer of data.

And right down deep the the quantum foam, where science as we know it just at the moment gets lost in the overlying bass note fuzz of eternity more often than not, there are informational exchanges happening here also, which operate the functions of the electron, with weird things like the Higgs boson invisibly floating about imparting the correct mass to particles in the universe, and the mass imparted to any one particle is pure information at one level or another.

However, at any level beneath the sub molecular, biology becomes irrelevant, because atoms do not behave differently in the body than they would any place else, and nor do electrons, neutrons, protons, or indeed any of the deep quantum fluff. A quark doesnt give a fig wether it is part of a biological system, and so its interaction with the rest of the universe is no different wether its part of my body, your body, a large body of water, or indeed a lamp post, so I fail to see why it is that biology and physics need to come together more closely than they already are.

Originally posted by tgidkp
i like that cartoon, but unfortunately, no, it does not give a valid description of "purpose" according to reductionist principles. lets take any one of those organisms and render them into a proper reduction of guts and globs and bones.... does the collection of those parts remain purposeful in the sense of "Eat. Survive. Reproduce."?

It is true that organisms eat survive and reproduce, while a collection of bones does not.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Interesting thread indeed .

Not all languages suffers from the same disease and this is a problem of perception imho.

By it's nature the languages must be reductionist in formation of the given data .

There exists a language of the hunter which suffers none of these problems yet when dilution of communication takes place via tongues the inevitable occurs ; entrophy in all it's glory for those who wants to buy it .

Do remember , this is all a dream .

TrueBrit

However, at any level beneath the sub molecular, biology becomes irrelevant, because atoms do not behave differently in the body than they would any place else, and nor do electrons, neutrons, protons, or indeed any of the deep quantum fluff. A quark doesnt give a fig wether it is part of a biological system, and so its interaction with the rest of the universe is no different wether its part of my body, your body, a large body of water, or indeed a lamp post, so I fail to see why it is that biology and physics need to come together more closely than they already are.

Strange quarks are a part of what makes up the nucleus an they are also virtual. There activity actually supports the structure of the atom. To enough of a percentage, that if it were not for their activity the atom would collapse.

To be clear it has to do with the mechanics of an atoms structure (however one would want to define that).

Further, carbon and say iron are not the same. Specifically in relation to the number of electron's, protons, and neutrons each element contains outwardly that difference is apparent.

In relation to inwardly at the quantum scale?

One can consider, the potential, related to the effect of greater density at the quantum scale as well of the effects of less density.

Myself, I can think of one.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by tgidkp
i like that cartoon, but unfortunately, no, it does not give a valid description of "purpose" according to reductionist principles. lets take any one of those organisms and render them into a proper reduction of guts and globs and bones.... does the collection of those parts remain purposeful in the sense of "Eat. Survive. Reproduce."?

It is true that organisms eat survive and reproduce, while a collection of bones does not.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Not if consciousness created the Universe, in which case the bones could very well be a part of another living process.

Take the planks satellite data that shows this Universe could be the by-product of contact with another pair of universe's. You assume these pair of universes interacted randomly so what evidence do you have to support that?

Why is it that to you the Universe cannot be an organism?

A universe that can form life may very well be alive.

A bunch of bones could very well be part of a living system.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

Whole organisms can eat and reproduce.
But if the organism is separated into constituent parts, in many cases those parts don't survive (though some primitive organisms can be chopped up and survive and grow new parts).
However referring specifically to bones, I've never seen any evidence that bones, without the rest of the organism, eat and reproduce.
If you have any such evidence it would be interesting to see it.
I've never seen any evidence the universe is what I would call an organism.
There is also a concept that the Earth is some kind of organism, called Gaia Hypothesis.
If you wanted to argue the Earth or the universe is an organism it seems pretty far fetched, but even in that context, the bones end up being food for something else...they don't eat. The creator of Gaia hypothesis denies that the concept implies purpose:

Lovelock has said that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non-scientists,[26] the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a neo-Pagan New Age religion. Many scientists in particular also criticised the approach taken in his popular book "Gaia, a New look at Life on Earth" for being teleological; a belief that all things have a predetermined purpose. Responding to this statement in 1990, Lovelock stated "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota".

There is plenty of mystery in real science.
It seems to me like some people are trying to make up mystery where there isn't any, like why organisms eat but a pile of bones doesn't eat. I don't think there's much mystery in that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am saying that the bones as well as everything else in the Universe is a part of a living process. As far as beliefs the idea that the Universe is alive this is not far fetched.

A point being that a Universe that resulted from a random event is too simple to be acknowledged in an altogether way.

Random event generators are not really random.....I mean if they were then maybe you would have a point, otherwise what you have is a far fetched belief system.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
Random event generators are not really random.....I mean if they were then maybe you would have a point, otherwise what you have is a far fetched belief system.

I have to deny your ignorance here.

A pseudorandom number generator is not a random number generator, if that's what you meant to say. They are useful, even though they aren't exactly random.

To make a true random number generator, we use nature:

HotBits: Genuine random numbers, generated by radioactive decay

Computer-generated “random” numbers are more properly referred to as pseudorandom numbers, and pseudorandom sequences of such numbers. A variety of clever algorithms have been developed which generate sequences of numbers which pass every statistical test used to distinguish random sequences from those containing some pattern or internal order. A test program is available at this site which applies such tests to sequences of bytes and reports how random they appear to be, and if you run this program on data generated by a high-quality pseudorandom sequence generator, you'll find it generates data that are indistinguishable from a sequence of bytes chosen at random. Indistinguishable, but not genuinely random.

HotBits is an Internet resource that brings genuine random numbers, generated by a process fundamentally governed by the inherent uncertainty in the quantum mechanical laws of nature,

So yes, quantum mechanics claims, and experiments have confirmed that there really is a randomness in nature.

However I don't know what this has to do with a pile of bones eating and reproducing or anything else in this thread. Seems like you're changing the subject.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
[more

Actually what can be construed as random can actually be non-random, just outside our capacity to comprehend.

I mean when one presents a trillion to the power of a trillion trials is there anything to suggest
something we think is random really is?

Please explain how the Casino industry can in any way shape or form actually benefits from your ideology???

Personally I would very much like to see an article in "Nature" or "Science" that supports your position as evidence. Of anything related to the existence of God not existing or the Universe being the result of a random event.

Any thoughts?

What does science do but pick away at the mind of creation attempting to make sense of the entirety piece by minute piece by linking each in some kind of formation (information) that we can 'read' and vainly expand upon (Hawkins etc) because ultimately we too want omnipotence but on our own terms. Prayer and beseeching doesn't cut the ice, history has taught us that, not that many don't still try. What a truly fascinating species we humans are that we don't simply sit under trees playing with ourselves but take it upon ourselves to learn everything that is out there to be learnt even if we are living in delusion. Consequently, there must be a God.
And of course there indeed is.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Friend what you need is a devise that can run a Loophole-free Bell test

Further

Feel free to explain how in your fantasy world truly random events can be generated.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by tgidkp


Can chaos or noise ever truly exist? For is not every 'bit of stuff' exactly a bit of stuff, because of the concept of order( em radiation is discrete exact values, subatomic particles, atoms are a system of organization..), and what you would call chaos, 'bunches of bits of stuff doing bunches of things', isnt that event still occurring under a paradigm of order? So I say there is no such thing as true chaos, only greater and lesser degrees of relative order. Only a finite amount of things can occur in a finite amount of ways, there are absolute limits on the total system, this is an absolute order, yes chaos and noise can exist, but it is still functioning under order, being guided by order, caused by order.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How exactly is radio-active decay related to Determinism?

Not really random is it????

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by MadMax7

 

What is this info useful for?

there is a deep abyss that we, as scientists, are going to have to cross in order to arrive at a true description of reality. being that physics is often regarded as the foundation of all other sciences, any attempt to cross this abyss will most likely have to start there.

this thread will help (i hope) everyone, academic and layman alike, to get a better view of what lies on the other side of that chasm.

but if it is not useful to you. i am okay with that.

I thought Scientists and Engineers solved problems. I still see basic problems that never got solved and ate themselves or are collapsing. I guess the top minds don't know #