Question to all Murcers - What is the (scientific) definition of life ?

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by mutz
...try this:

Neutrinos are sub-atomic energy particles with mass that stream from our sun and other stars throughout the universe. They are so small that they pass through even the most dense of materials. They pass, for example, through the human body at the rate of three trillion neutrinos per square inch per second.

Neutrinos pass through everything in our universe. In their course, they are affected and deflected by everything they pass through in such a way that in the vast variations within their vast numbers they carry the message of everything they pass through to everything they pass through. You could call them the breath of the universe.

Every living thing that neutrinos pass through reacts to the message of neutrinos and is influenced and programmed by the neutrinos' passage, thereby influencing every living thing in its life.

Non-living things are not influenced by the message of neutrinos, though the message of non-living things is carried by neutrinos.

Therefore, anything affected, programmed and influenced by the message of neutrinos is alive.

Heh.. now let's talk seriously about midichlorians.

[Dr Mordrid]

Neutrinos hardly interact with matter at all and so are not what one would exactly call mutagenic and certainly are not a very efficient method for encoding messages.

The interact so infrequently with normal matter that neutrino detectors consist of millions of gallons of water and literally thousands scintillation detectors buried in a mountain or deep underground to capture the energy given off by an interaction event.

Such a detector might only see a few interactions a year.

Dr. Mordrid

[Marshmallowman]

But it is party time when they see an interaction, then all the astronomers go mad looking for something about to explode

life=something that is greater than the some of its parts and has an intrinisc energy that we don't comprehend...but we know its their


or is that 42

[mutz]

...unhunh, this is where the fun begins. If we stick to Dogbert's rule of scientific, such a definition of life will be extremely confined, ultimately incorrect, and "scientifically" not provable in a million years of "research". Imagine that budget...

First of all, "science", in it's current laughable definition, must be "provable". Provable, then, would mean unemotional satisfaction of critierion originating out of the human brain, which by definition is an evolving body accessory organ or bio-computer, which is in turn impossible because every human brain has been uniquely and individually programmed by the life experience of that individual. Therefore, the only possible scientific "proof" is an agreed consensus of the participants in the proving. But then again we all know how faulty that can be when a majority consensus elects Presidents or Prime Ministers...

The foregoing neutrino statement is entirely my formulation, which I "know" to be true. Proving it, however, at the current rate of scientific "development" will probably take about 10,000 years. Scientists have only recently proved that neutrinos have mass. Neutrinos are a mystery to scientists that is so huge they can't begin to get their brains around it. Whereas the Seers of the Upnishads "knew" what the Breath of the Universe was 10,000 years ago when the human brain was even less developed than today. Much about the Breath of the Universe was lost in the burning of the library at Alexandria.

So proof and definition can only be a matter of consensus, whereas "knowing" is the sum of all sentience, and simply is.

Do you need proof or consensus that you are brushing your teeth? You know that with your eyes closed.

If you try to define (or fix) your wife, she'll laugh at you, smack you or leave you, because life is an ever moving flux and to fix something or someone is to control it or kill it.

If you are over zealous in defining your job, or proving you are right, you will probably get fired. You "know" better.

As for debating, a friend of mine was one of the finalists in the national debating championship of his country. Just as my friend completed his argument for, his oponent suddenly "got sick" and withdrew. The judges were baffled and about to cancel the debate when my friend said "Wait! I have now argued for, may I then take my oponents place and argue against?" The judges, intrigued by the idea, allowed the debate to continue. My friend won two gold medals...

So this thread is infinite, since every individual is unique and will ultimately have his own "definition" of life, and that definition will mutate in order to survive and have fun.

Thank god! Life would be dead boring if everything was defined and/or had to be proved. Imagine! ...

[Dogbert]

Ummm, it can still be 'scientific' in a way that if you manage to make a definition that would encompass only living things and exclude all non living things, it'll be it. That's untill something new will be discovered to ruin that definition.

According to our current knowledge of our universe, are there any parameters we could use to separate living things from non living things ?
You can even think about it as a computer program with If, Else and switch/case etc. Put some While loops into it if it helps.
What I'm looking for is some kind of algorithm that when given data will tell me whether this it's living data or non living data.

The simplest most childish way would be:

If X can be killed Then X = Alive

Now, what parameters do we know that define ONLY living or non living things ?

[mutz]

...I think Dr. Franenstein tried that...

There was a German philosopher, mathematician, or something, that tried to work out a formula that would include all variables to use as his decision maker whether to marry a certain woman or not. It took years. When he thought he was finished and had made his decision, much to his shock and surprise, she had married somebody else...

I only know one formula that is likely to succeed in your quest:

BT+DTxY=K+AA=LSD

However it is possible that if BT or DT have not been thorough or sufficient, one and/or the other must be repeated for perhaps your whole life before K will be complete and valid. Only when K is valid can AA be added to arrive at LSD.

One viable variable to BTxY+DT=K+AA=LSD and shortcut might be:

JWI=L.

You should try it out for yourself...

[thop]

dogbert, why are looking for such a formula?

[Dogbert]

I'm looking for an algorithm, not a formula.
Nobody has one yet, but since there is a knowledgable bunch of people around here, I believe we could get a quite accurate one together.

An old bad example would be the old yes-no script which tried to guess what animal you are thinking of.
An example could be found here: http://www.sjbaker.org/steve/toys/guess_animals.html

I'm not looking for a silly script with n questions. I'm looking for an algorithm with a few basic parameters that would distinguish live from non living stuff.

With I/O parameters such as:

Evolve
Consume
Adapt
Multiply
Interact
.
.
.

Our algorithm, once refined should answer whether the thing we have in mind is alive or not.
We'll test it with characteristics of Crystals, Fire, Viruses, Bacteria, Plants, Spores, mamals and maybe a few othre ideas till it's accurate enough.
If it's good enough, it might be one of a kind.

Again, I'm not a/the judge, we'll all throw animals / objects and stuff in between (friends) at the algorithm till it won't fail.
Then we can try to make it as short as possible (better coding), re-test it and be proud of it.
As a finalle, we could let it/him test it/himself for 'life'

[mdhome]

Maybe the real essence that gives life to inanimate matter is something that scientists havent yet discovered. When they do, the describing of life could become simple. A bit like modern scientists looking for the GUT to simplify the Universe

Who knows, all it might take is just the touch of god to turn a piee of rock into something that is consious

Regards Michael

[Dogbert]

In 4 days it'll be "Yom Kipur" and then god will get his share of attention from me. Till then let's try to focus on science ?

[thop]

you still have not answered my question dogbert

[mdhome]

Dogbert, lets assume that life cant be defined by current scientific knowledge/thinking. If this is the case, then where do we go from here?

Regards Michael

[Dogbert]

I answered it, but I will again:

I'm not looking for a formula, I'm looking for an algorithm.
Why ? Cause none exists.
I believe us crazy bunch might achieve something scientists didn't.
Why do I think so ? Cause most scientists are locked inside dogmas, like the biological dogma that calls for DNA.
Also, we know computers and algorithms which some scientists don't. This gives us some kind of a logical edge over them.
Last, there is a bunch of really sick minded (Yes, you know and I know who you are) individuals here that might be able to contribute to something positive for once.

[Dogbert]

Originally posted by mdhome
Dogbert, lets assume that life cant be defined by current scientific knowledge/thinking. If this is the case, then where do we go from here?

Regards Michael

And my answer would be NO.
You are free to assume anything you want, I'm not going to stop before I give it at least a decent try.
Whether we fail or not, like I said before "Yom Kipur" is 4 days from today.

[mdhome]

How about
Object() +EssenceX()= animateObject()
or
object.add(EssenceX())=animateObject();