tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post5143178758121220061..comments2024-01-17T02:41:29.011-06:00Comments on The Humanist Contemplative Blog: Cultural Conceptions of "Life"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-34967641703429201192005-11-24T13:33:00.000-06:002005-11-24T13:33:00.000-06:00Well, I think I know the solution to the problem b...Well, I think I know the solution to the problem below:<br><i><br>The problem is that it also includes things like the<br>red spot on Jupiter, which has been around far longer<br>than the time any one particle of gas has spent within<br>it. It also might be said to include corporations,<br>which are constantly changing out individual workers,<br>buildings, etc. but maintain their organizational form<br>and function.<br><br>I think we all have a sense that lizards and people<br>and cats and trees are alive and rocks and clouds and<br>rivers are not. It seems like it's almost self<br>evident and there's something extremely intuitive<br>about it. So much so that we figure there MUST be<br>some rational and logical formula that should clearly<br>delineate why one is alive and the other not. </i><br><br>It is quite simple, and the guys that created the notion of autopoiesis thought of that: if you add the condition on the matter itself (a lipid bylayer, with proteins, etc...) you have a definition that "fits" perfectly what we "intuitively" see as alive. I know of no other way out of this difficulty.Aliochahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290168689752838305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-65927981081775776362005-11-26T11:36:00.000-06:002005-11-26T11:36:00.000-06:00Hi Aliocha, thanks for posting! I agree that if w...Hi Aliocha, thanks for posting! I agree that if we add the condition of the material makeup, that the definition then fits what we traditionally call "life". <br><br>However, when we look at the actual process, it calls into question whether perhaps that condition might be arbitrary. In other words, perhaps our traditional and intuitive distinction of "life" is rather meaningless given what we've discovered about Complexity. Therefore, adding the condition of organic materials is just an arbitrary qualifier we stack on top to bring the definition in line with that misperception. <br><br>This approach may have a good utility to it for biological sciences purposes, but when we're trying to see beyond mere language and intuitive conception, and trying to conceive of reality as unbiased and accurately as possible, perhaps realizing and accepting that being picky about the specific material is a distraction from truly understanding what life <b>is</b> in a wider philosophic sense of the word? Just a thought.DT Strainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-65404096692922325982007-02-01T10:50:00.000-06:002007-02-01T10:50:00.000-06:00One sees in various poplular articles on autopoies...One sees in various poplular articles on autopoiesis, that the Jupiter GRS is an example of autopoiesis.<br><br>Is this really true? Is there a more formal discussion of this in a peer reviewed journal? If you could let me know, I would appreciate it.<br><br>thx.<br>Paul<br>pjoseph@gmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-58872216971368476752007-02-01T11:07:00.000-06:002007-02-01T11:07:00.000-06:00Hi Paul, thanks for reading and for your comments....Hi Paul, thanks for reading and for your comments. I'm not a scientist myself, and probably most of what I've read of autopoiesis is from what would be called 'popular science'. However, I think these are often written by serious scientists. One thing you might want to do is check out the Wikipedia article on autopoiesis. Wikipedia, of course, is even less 'official' than pop science books (since it is editable by anyone). However, they list a number of references at the bottom and some of these may be peer reviewed (I'm not certain).<br><br>If you're simply asking whether or not it is factually true that the red spot on Jupiter has lasted longer than any one molecule within it has been a part of it, I'm not certain where that data and calculation comes from, but I suspect one of those references.DT Strainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-80610864619240575652007-02-03T10:51:00.000-06:002007-02-03T10:51:00.000-06:00Thank you for your reply. None of the links you m...Thank you for your reply. None of the links you mention, point to more information re. Jupiter's GRS. I guess this is the current strength/weakness of the internet--points to potentially valuable information, but without rigour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-885527867833311224.post-83196274797540250112007-02-04T10:30:00.000-06:002007-02-04T10:30:00.000-06:00Quite true. I find it funny how often I ask someon...Quite true. I find it funny how often I ask someone where they got something and they say "off the internet" - as if it's just one thing. Care in where we get our information is important. <br><br>You mean you've already looked through the content of The Observer Web, the papers on archonic.net, the Ragnar Heil papers, "Autopoiesis and the Enterprise", Tom Quick's overview, and Limone's article? I would think that one of these might have had a reference to it.<br><br>In any case, if it should turn out that the spot on Jupiter has NOT been around longer than any one molecule in it, that would mean it's not a good example of autopoiesis. However, the inapplicability of that one example shouldn't damage my overall thesis. In any case, if you do happen to find more rigorous data on Jupiter's spot, please let me know.<br>-thanks! :)DT Strainnoreply@blogger.com