Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
What do you mean? Survival is unique and without purpose, due to the mindless universe it ‘emerged’ from?
Noooo... I'm saying that actions performed in order to enhance survival are neither "field-like" nor always an "act of will" in the sense of a conscious choice.
I ask that you take the time to do me the same courtesy and specifically address mine, head-on.
If you want me to expand or clarify any particular point because I may not have been clear enough the first time, of course, you need just ask.
But I'm getting rather tired of crafting replies to specifically engage you on certain points you've raised, only to have you pretty much just blow them off. For a specific example:
Strange how some of you cannot see the “will to live” when it is plainly obvious to so many, if not most all, of the rest of us.
I have seen no one on this thread say or indicate that they "cannot see the 'will to live'" you're speaking of. Several -- including myself -- have very specifically acknowledged it. What people *have* objected to -- and which you have mostly glossed over and failed to respond to -- is that your *choice of words*, to wit "will", imputes more to such "survival enhancers" (to pick a neutral term) than you have been able to make a case for, since it seems that you are asserting an act of "mind" in every such case, despite the fact (yet another point you have failed to address head-on) that in many specific cases such behavior is known to result from purely mechanical, chemical-triggered reactions. No one denies the "end purpose" of such mechanisms -- they're geared towards continue survival -- but you're overstating your case (or at least you have not supported your case here) when you keep trying to categorize all these diverse survival-enhancers as an "act of will".
So please, stop declaring that any of us "cannot see" such behavior -- when we've TALKED about it in our posts -- and slow down enough to actually read our posts carefully enough to understand (and then address) what we *have* actually said.
I am asking no more than we have done for you.
That will to live is the underlying principle of the biosphere, ecological balance. Ignorant plantlife are all caught up in this same "will to live". It applies universally, collectively, in all forms of life....precisely because living things are shaped by evolution (note that in this context this makes no claims about the origin of life or even common descent, nor does it need to), and evolution by virtue of its very nature SHAPES LIVING THINGS TO ADD SURVIVAL ENHANCERS -- the very features we're discussing here which you lump into the label of "will to live". Even if living things had been "created" with no "will to live", EVOLUTION WOULD ADD IT because it enhances survival, and shaping subsequent generations to enhance survival is what evolution DOES.
This point was made several times in prior posts, but rather than tackle that point in any direct way whatsoever, you chose to just blow it off:
Y’all seem to object to the “will to live” because you believe is not “needed”. That is a cop-out, a statement of religious faith, like the anthropic principle, i.e. “Nature did it!”Well maybe nature *did* do it -- there are certainly known, verified, understood processes by which nature *can* do it, we have strong evidences along multiple lines that nature *has* done it, and we have personally observed specific cases where nature *DOES* do it (e.g. bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics by developing proteins which actively "block" or "attack" the antibiotics -- a perfect example of the kinds of actions you yourself accept a examples of the "will to live").
So please explain: By what act of apparent arrogance do you hand-wave this away as nothing more than, "a cop-out, a statement of religious faith", when we *do* have evidenciary and experimental support for our position? Since you blow off those points without even actually specifically mentioning them or "explaining" why you think they are inadequate in some way, might it instead be you who are engaging in "a cop-out, a statement of religious faith" in the offhand way you you dismiss all such arguments because of *your* "faith" that natural means "can't" be enough and that there "must" be some metaphysical explanation (which you can't actually elucidate other than to employ undefined buzzwords like "fields")?
Which brings me to the next point:
It applies universally, collectively, in all forms of life. That is why we say it is "field-like" - it is not peculiar to select space/time coordinates or entities.Several times the point has been made that even if something is ubiquitous, that doesn't automatically make it a "field" (nor even "field-like"). You have failed to address these points. Several times you have been asked specifically whether you had any actual reason to postulate a "field" involvement other than the fact that you see ubiquity. You have failed to answer those questions. Evolution would also ubiquitously imbue all of its domain (things which replicate, which obviously includes life) with traits which could be loosely described as "will to live" -- you have overlooked this point even though it provides an alternative explanation for such ubiquity which you logically must address if you wish to determine which factor(s) are actually at work here.
And you have failed to answer questions as to why you say that "it is not peculiar to select space/time coordinates or entities", when it seems that such actions/reactions which enhance survival certainly *do* seem to be "peculiar to select space/time coordinates" (e.g. the amoeba example takes place in and around the amoeba), and "peculiar to select entities" in that it only manifests in things which replicate (e.g. rocks show no "will to live").
Do this thought experiment: Compare a live amoeba to a dead one. Ask yourself, what is the difference? If you have any confidence at all in physical causality – that every effect is caused – then you must have an answer.Sure: The dead one's survival enhancing mechanisms are broken, in the same way that a smashed computer no longer is able to perform its normal operations either. Like a finely tuned high-tech automobile engine which has catastrophically thrown a rod and is now good for little more than a large, expensive doorstop.
If you think this is "too natural" an explanation, then let's step down from the metaphysical "field of will" generalizations and get *specific* -- pick a *specific* scenario and name any *specific* thing which a living amoeba does that a dead one doesn't, and I'll describe for you the specific natural explanation for why the dead one isn't doing that anymore. Then you can explain what metaphysical explanation needs to be invoked in order to "imbue" the mechanistic one and why.
Hint: the answer will not be in an “automatic” response."Statement of religious faith"? "Metaphysics does it"?
What is observed in living molecules is a change of states.What is a "living molecule" exactly? And "a change of states" occurs in all kinds of molecules, even simple ones like iron crystals. So... where are we going with this?
This changing of states is a reduction of uncertainty (entropy) which is caused by the receipt and decoding of an incoming coded message. That is successful communication, information in biological systems.The same thing happens in non-biological systems, just not as often and usually not as fancy.
Furthermore, I find it somewhat ironic that you've frequently expressed enthusiasm about the promise of analyzing the processes of living things (and indeed, "life itself") in a reductionist, information/entropy/cascade-based "molecular machine" manner, at the same time that you're derisively accusing *us* of a "a cop-out a statement of religious faith" for daring to do the same with respect to survival mechanisms. Do you not see a conflict in that?
The old adage “there are none so blind, as those who will not see” comes to mind.And in exactly the same spirit in which that was intended, right back at ya, dearest Alamo-Girl.
I won't be on-line today. It's my Dad's birthday, and we are all celebrating his 84th!
I hate to miss all the fun, but jeepers, I have the best of reasons!
See you and all ('yall) soon! Hugs!!!
Please give my regards to Pop Boop!
In my view the boundary of the will to live is space/time, i.e. field-like existing at all points in space/time. Your terminology and argument in the latest post represents an individual organism's will to live which you call “survival enhancers”.
They are opposing theories, the one term cannot be substituted for the other.
IOW, there is no point in examining the biochemistry and evolution unless we somehow come to an agreement that the will to live is not universal. And that isn’t going to happen easily, Ichneumon – because you would have to convince both betty and me (not to mention a number of experts she previously cited) – that the will to live is not field-like.
The following remarks on the subsequent posts are addressed above in the Occam’s Razor response:
In what manner is that superior to the null hypothesis of "it ain't got none and don't need none"?
We do "observe at bottom at the most primitive levels of life", activities which can be mislabeled as "will to live", but it's not "field-like". Even if it's ubiquitous in living things, that still doesn't make it "permeating all space/time" nor "field-like".
No, chemical tropisms do, which are no more based on "will" than is the way in which surface tension causes water to "climb" a capillary tube. Water does not "will" itself to rise in narrow tubes, nor could it "will" otherwise. And ameobas do not "will" themselves to engulf nutrients.
Hint: the answer will not be in an “automatic” response. Only creatures who have a dormant phase in their life cycle will respond to feeding to become active. Try feeding a dead cat.
What is observed in living molecules is a change of states. This changing of states is a reduction of uncertainty (entropy) which is caused by the receipt and decoding of an incoming coded message. That is successful communication, information in biological systems.
There are three possible initiation types for such successful communications: interrupts (sensory) – cycles (like heart beats) – and will (will to live, intent, abstraction, anticipation, etc.)
That’s fine and dandy as far as it goes – but it does not explain the will to live. The will is the third kind of initiation of a cascade of successful communication. Why should there be any will to live at all?
Or to put it another way, what exists in the universe that would cause molecular machinery to arise and pursue life in the midst of a march towards thermodynamic entropy?
So please explain: By what act of apparent arrogance do you hand-wave this away as nothing more than, "a cop-out, a statement of religious faith", when we *do* have evidenciary and experimental support for our position? Since you blow off those points without even actually specifically mentioning them or "explaining" why you think they are inadequate in some way, might it instead be you who are engaging in "a cop-out, a statement of religious faith" in the offhand way you you dismiss all such arguments because of *your* "faith" that natural means "can't" be enough and that there "must" be some metaphysical explanation (which you can't actually elucidate other than to employ undefined buzzwords like "fields")?
Without meeting those challenges – every time someone says or implies that “Nature did it” it registers to me precisely the same as a correspondent who says “God did it”. IOW, it doesn’t matter to me what bias a correspondent brings to the table as long as he doesn’t try to shut off all discussion by making such a declaration.
And you have failed to answer questions as to why you say that "it is not peculiar to select space/time coordinates or entities", when it seems that such actions/reactions which enhance survival certainly *do* seem to be "peculiar to select space/time coordinates" (e.g. the amoeba example takes place in and around the amoeba), and "peculiar to select entities" in that it only manifests in things which replicate (e.g. rocks show no "will to live").
If you think this is "too natural" an explanation, then let's step down from the metaphysical "field of will" generalizations and get *specific* -- pick a *specific* scenario and name any *specific* thing which a living amoeba does that a dead one doesn't, and I'll describe for you the specific natural explanation for why the dead one isn't doing that anymore. Then you can explain what metaphysical explanation needs to be invoked in order to "imbue" the mechanistic one and why.
It is the fields which give rise to the “illusion” of matter at the level our eyes can perceive matter. The structure of space/time may well be vibrating strings, some open and some closed (string theory).
When betty boop and I say that the will to live is field-like we are saying it is like electromagnetism. The wave function is the mechanism whereby a field propagates. If we are correct about this (and there are scientists who are in this same ballpark) – the field may be measurable – if not directly, then indirectly.
The bottom line is this: the will to live originates somehow, it permeates every cell as well as every cell in an organism, it initiates successful communication in biological life. When that successful communications ends, the cell is dead.
you: "Statement of religious faith"? "Metaphysics does it"?
you: What is a "living molecule" exactly? And "a change of states" occurs in all kinds of molecules, even simple ones like iron crystals. So... where are we going with this?
you: And in exactly the same spirit in which that was intended, right back at ya, dearest Alamo-Girl.
My frustration peaks when correspondents arrive on a thread with no intention other than to pontificate – all Heat, no Light.
If the dialogue is not constructive, it is not my "style" and I ought to just exit rather than complain about it.
But what happens when you find an example where natural causes are both necessary and sufficient (as in the ameoba chemotaxis case)?
It's metabolic enzyme cascades are no longer working.
Cynaide kills you not because it removes some magical life component, it kills you because it blocks the ATP generating machinery in your mitcochondria of your cells.
Some cells are developmentally "programmed" to die; when the signal is delivered, thousands of enzymatic "scissors" are released and cut up many key metabolic proteins.
I am not saying "nature" is all there is, but importing unnecessary causes would make science a lot more confusing and unproductive.
Where are you getting this from?
There is no such thing as a "living" molecule.
Biological molecules work just as well whether they come from dead cells, living cells, or synthesized in the lab in vitro. There must have been literally millions of experiments which corroborate this.
Nevertheless, it does not respond to the whole question. The other two types of causation are cyclic and will. What do you say is the natural cause for the will to live, if not a field which urges life?
you: It's metabolic enzyme cascades are no longer working.
The answer is rather obvious to me – the missing element is successful communication. The other part of that issue is what causes – initiates – originates – a successful communication. There are three types: interrupt, cyclic and will.
In the case of an amoeba, you may be able to remove the food source and cause the amoeba to die – but do the same thing to creatures with dormant life cycles and they will go into “stand by” dormant mode. You could interrupt the cycle of heart rhythm and kill the heart, but the rest of the molecular machinery in the body will continue to try to survive.
Stop a part of the heart (myocardial infarction) and the will to live which permeates the entire body - and the particular molecular machinery in question will route blood around the dead heart tissue in this struggle to survive, this will to live.
The will to live is visible and obvious when we look at a living organism like a bird or a man - but it exists throughout all of the component molecular machinery. It exists in single cell organisms, collectives, plant life - all living systems.
you:
Where are you getting this from?
I’ve been using the term “molecular biology” so frequently I often fail to make the distinction between cell, molecules and molecular machinery. What I am speaking to is the molecular machinery – which is either living or dead.
A molecular machine is a single macromolecule or macromolecular complex which performs a specific function for a living system, is usually primed by an energy source, dissipates energy as it does something specific and gains information by selecting between two or more after states.
Thanks for the "Time Before Time" link; I hadn't seen that article.
Right - a metabolic cascade of enzymes is the "communication" between many, many networks of proteins in the machinery. Communication in the sense that A triggers B which triggers C which feeds into another set of reactions etc.
So perhaps we arent so far apart after all.
But at the same time (and we do this routinely), one can take an enzyme made independently of a living cell and transport it into a live cell. In this case it joins the communication network just fine. So the term "living" molecule is misleading IMO.
But that's not even at issue here because if the will to live is field-like
Would you classify a sodium ion moving toward a chloride ion as "will"?
So perhaps we arent so far apart after all.
I can characterize the difference between us as this: you are focusing on the physical, visible effects of the communication happening - whereas I am focused on the causation and then the successful communication itself.
Both the cause (will to live) and the successful communication (Shannon information) are constructs which apply to all living molecular machinery.
Because constructs are fully transportable they can be (and are) analyzed and modeled independently of their application. This is an "unreasonable effectiveness of math" that we can apply Shannon communication theory across a wide variety of disciplines.
Likewise, quantum field theory may help us to understand the "will to live" - causation. Universal applicability to the biosphere (amoeba to whale, kidney to cardiovascular, plants to animals) is what suggests that the “will to live” – the causation – is field-like.
You also said:
Thank you Patrick! We had a lovely day....
What's undefined about the concept of a field, Ichneumon? Certainly you've heard of EM fields? Can we recognize that organic bodies generate EM fields? And that perhaps it is the field itself that makes biological self-organization and internal government possible, for the field is the unifying "matrix" that permits the organism to act as a unifed, integrated whole?
That's one type of field. There are also vacuum fields, and it has been speculated that a universal vacuum field is the carrier of biological information, or what has been termed the "life principle," or Bauer principle (after Hungarian theoretical biologist Ervin Bauer). Meticulous calculations have been done that show DNA is far too "information poor" to be the source of biological information itself, but may itself serve as a kind of "router" that accesses the proper biological info (i.e., "proper" for the particular organism) from the vacuum and translates it to the organism, leading to a "successful communication" that "reduces the uncertainty of the reciver in moving from a before-state to an after-state."
If this is so, then the evolution of the genome is the wrong place to look for the ultimate source of biological information. Evolutionary theory might do well to consider that evolution alone does not generate sufficient biological information, and that evolution might actually be affected by, even driven by, informational inputs from the vacuum.
Good. Now you sound like Bruce Lipton. The field is matter.
Or energy. :^) We'll see. Maybe. (We should live so long!)
Matrix is the same word as matter. Energy is either potential or work. The field is energy and the matrix. Energy is matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.