It becomes a lot more obvious why defining "life" is so tricky when you remember that people were talking about "alive" and "dead" things for millennia before the advent of the scientific method. In other words, the concept of "living" originated as a label for a cluster of phenomena that were relevant to human experience, particularly the discrete entities close enough in size to be perceived with the naked eye and that move/grow/reproduce on a human-perceptable time scale. Things like fire, rivers, or clouds share some of these characteristics, which is why in certain cultures at certain times they were considered "alive", but the core of the semantic category has always been and remains the things that are the human-scale culmination of the non-random biochemical aggregation/stacking process Frederick describes: animals, plants, and fungi.
Thank you for your insightful comment. You are certainly correct that scale makes a difference. Both size and temporal patterns influence how, and to what we apply the term 'life'. Scale also makes a difference, as you know, in how we assign value to organisms. We are much more likely to value the life of our dog than we are to value the life of the flea that lives on it. That was the point of the Dr. Seuss book, "Horton Hears a Who!", wasn't it? (I must've read that book 100 times to my children…) Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. My best, Frederick
Though one might suggest that men may have had something of a "seminal" influence in getting the ball (of cells) rolling.
And thanks for the recommendation of "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence" -- only $2.00 on Kindle, what a deal.
But -- given that the recent UK Supreme Court case ruling that transwomen are not women is roiling the waters of the blogosphere, even if they dropped the ball in failing to define exactly what it takes to qualify as male or female -- you in particular might like one of my recent posts on that topic:
"Rerum cognoscere causas
Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints":
Some fairly solid and quite respectable philosophy and biology that justifies, I think, the more or less orthodox view that THE "necessary and sufficient" condition to qualify as male and female is the presence of either of two distinct types of mechanisms that are currently producing either "small or large reproductive cells". From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
"Mechanisms in Science; Nov 18, 2015:
Around the turn of the twenty-first century, what has come to be called the new mechanical philosophy (or, for brevity, the new mechanism) emerged as a framework for thinking about the philosophical assumptions underlying many areas of science, especially in sciences such as biology, neuroscience, and psychology. In this entry, we introduce and summarize the distinctive features of this framework, and we discuss how it addresses a range of classic issues in the philosophy of science, including explanation, metaphysics, the relations between scientific disciplines, and the process of scientific discovery. "
What a profound and beautiful explanation of how the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and how emergent properties can arise from less complex materials. This is one of the amazing things about art, too; emotion can be evoked from the arrangement of paint on canvas, or , in this case, words on a page. Thank you for the reminder to consider the miracles around us!
Thank you for that very kind comment… I hadn't thought about this in terms of art, but you are quite right! You've given me a new perspective to think about. Have a wonderful week. Sincerely, Frederick
Im glad you included an Epilogue...because man's knowledge is finite. The belief in possibility always begets more knowledge & understanding, or at least, nurtures the pursuit thereof.
So cool, thank you Frederick! Wish I could stop by your office too. To dig into the identity and consciousness part, I often think about my changing sense of "me" or "you" over the years. As you write, "It’s the system’s higher-level activities — the emergent properties like thinking and talking — that define the ‘living’ you. It isn’t the temporary set of molecules I’m looking at now." If you are over 60 and if you've ever read a letter you wrote to someone when you were 18, there's this weird sense of both an overlap of "me," some things that still seem like "me" and a disconcerting sense that this person is NOT "me" and also (uncomfortably) does not fit my current stories of who I was at 18. How could I be so dumb/naive/whatever? In the letter are things I write about that I cannot even remember happening, references to people who I obviously thought were significant--but who the hell is "Paul?" Same thing happens when I listen to old tapes of concerts I performed 30 years ago--I often hear songs I sometimes do not remember writing at all! Or there is a whiff of familiarity, but I have no idea what inspired it. Truly strange, and yet, there's "my" voice on the tape (different than now, but still similar enough) and I recognize "my" writing style and still connect to it. This issue of self also comes up a lot in my music work with elders with advanced dementia. Family members often wonder if their loved one is really "in there." Their beloved person seems so changed, and they ARE so changed, both physically and obviously in their expression of "higher functions." But perhaps the person is no more, no less "in there" than I am compared to earlier times in my life. This may not be scientific, I don't know, but it does seem like there are patterns of consciousness or self-hood that persist over a lifetime, even as they also change. That sense of "me" and "you." When the music inspires a spark of light in their eyes, a laugh, or a comment, suddenly we can see that person with advanced dementia is present in a way that connects to who they used to be, who we used to think of them as anyway. They are still "in there!"
What a beautiful, well articulated and insightful comment! I agree with your nuanced understanding of both the overlap and the unfamiliarity we have with our former selves. Ideally, our long-term relationships should help us understand and reconcile those two perspectives. Interestingly, though, as the years go by, I find myself recognizing more mysteries, having more questions, and being more uncertain about the workings of the human mind. In any event, if you did stop by my office, we would end up spending hours talking about these topics, I am sure. By the way, when I first read your comment I thought about the thoughtfulness of your music (which I thoroughly enjoy)… A thoughtfulness that was reflected, once again, in what you wrote here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Sincerely, Frederick
This was a wonderful essay! It brightened my morning.
The question of how to recognize if something is alive will be a very crucial one once we actually start detailed explorations of other planets (so far we’ve barely scratch the surface of Mars, but that will change, I think, in time). But here on earth, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment regarding pornography seems apt:” I know it when I see it.“
Thank you so much! I completely agree with your comment… Who knows what wonderful and intriguing life forms are out there in the universe? Or, for that matter, in the depths of our oceans, or the nooks and crannies of our rainforests. It seems that almost every month there's some story about a new species that's been discovered, or some new unicellular organism that's been identified. It's all a wonder to me. Thank you again for your comment. Sincerely, Frederick
I often say that we really do not need to go into outer space to find aliens. They exist right here on planet Earth!
Our planet is a marvel. Life is a marvel. And the entire universe is a marvel. And all we have to do to appreciate these things is open our eyes and look!
ALMOST 150 years have passed since Charles Darwin proposed that natural selection explains life’s complexity and diversity. However, his theory of evolution and its modern variations have recently come under attack from those who believe that the marvelously fine-tuned architecture of living organisms indicates purposeful design. Even a number of scientists with solid credentials do not accept the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see on earth.
Some such scientists offer a counterargument—known as intelligent design, or ID—asserting that design in creation is firmly supported by biology, mathematics, and common sense. They seek to include discussion of this idea in the science curriculum in schools. The so-called evolution wars are raging mainly in the United States, but similar trends are reported in England, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Serbia, and Turkey.
A Puzzling Omission
There is usually, however, a conspicuous omission in the carefully worded defense of intelligent design. That is the absence of reference to a designer. Do you believe that design is conceivable without a designer? Advocates of intelligent design “make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be,” reported The New York Times Magazine. Writer Claudia Wallis stated that intelligent design proponents are “careful not to bring God into the discussion.” And Newsweek magazine commented that “I.D. has nothing to say on the existence and identity of the designer.”
You can appreciate, though, that it is futile to try to evade the question of the designer. How could the explanation involving design in the universe and of life itself be complete if the existence and identity of the designer were concealed or not even considered?
To an extent, the debate on whether to invoke a designer or not revolves around these questions: Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?
Thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts Frederick. In 1959, whilst pregnant ( !) an atheist, evolutionist and a Marxist at heart, I pondered on those kind of thoughts. (What is life etc). Thankfully in 1961 I received more satisfying answers along the lines of the above article I read. (Especially satisfying answers to those last three questions which I would be happy to share with anyone with an open mind on these sorts of issues). Have a wonderful day everyone.
Ps. Personally. I am still thankful to be “alive” at 85yrs of age, to smell the roses and be enchanted by a butterfly, neither of which are necessary to remain “Alive” are they? . They are gifts for us to enjoy in an ungrateful world.
However, I kinda think he fell short in not giving more credence to self-organization -- still kind of magical though. Pretty clever of Jehovah to "design" the universe that way ... 😉🙂
Good morning. I sincerely thank you for this wonderfully thoughtful and thought-provoking comment. Personally, I tend not to think that there is a designer, although I'm humble in that opinion. I think the systems that we see in the universe are self designing and self organizing. If they were not, none of us would be here. Whether or not there is a designer, the systems have to organize in such a way that they continue to function. Unless, of course, you think that the designer makes each one independently and then maintains it meticulously over time. I think the more important point for people to understand is that we are dynamic, complex, ever-changing systems. Understanding that brings a sense of compassion, tolerance, and insight to our dealings with one another. If I recognize the fact that my children, for instance, will change over time, I approach them differently than I would if I thought that there was some "ideal" condition that defined what it meant to be a human being. In other words, understanding the complexities of biology lead you to appreciate the diversity of biological systems.
It made me very happy to read your final lines. Every day that we have is a joyous gift… Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. Sincerely, Frederick
It becomes a lot more obvious why defining "life" is so tricky when you remember that people were talking about "alive" and "dead" things for millennia before the advent of the scientific method. In other words, the concept of "living" originated as a label for a cluster of phenomena that were relevant to human experience, particularly the discrete entities close enough in size to be perceived with the naked eye and that move/grow/reproduce on a human-perceptable time scale. Things like fire, rivers, or clouds share some of these characteristics, which is why in certain cultures at certain times they were considered "alive", but the core of the semantic category has always been and remains the things that are the human-scale culmination of the non-random biochemical aggregation/stacking process Frederick describes: animals, plants, and fungi.
Thank you for your insightful comment. You are certainly correct that scale makes a difference. Both size and temporal patterns influence how, and to what we apply the term 'life'. Scale also makes a difference, as you know, in how we assign value to organisms. We are much more likely to value the life of our dog than we are to value the life of the flea that lives on it. That was the point of the Dr. Seuss book, "Horton Hears a Who!", wasn't it? (I must've read that book 100 times to my children…) Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. My best, Frederick
"How Do Women Make Living People Out of Dead Stuff?"
Magic? "That old black" variety? 😉🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Old_Black_Magic
Though one might suggest that men may have had something of a "seminal" influence in getting the ball (of cells) rolling.
And thanks for the recommendation of "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence" -- only $2.00 on Kindle, what a deal.
But -- given that the recent UK Supreme Court case ruling that transwomen are not women is roiling the waters of the blogosphere, even if they dropped the ball in failing to define exactly what it takes to qualify as male or female -- you in particular might like one of my recent posts on that topic:
"Rerum cognoscere causas
Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
Some fairly solid and quite respectable philosophy and biology that justifies, I think, the more or less orthodox view that THE "necessary and sufficient" condition to qualify as male and female is the presence of either of two distinct types of mechanisms that are currently producing either "small or large reproductive cells". From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP]:
"Mechanisms in Science; Nov 18, 2015:
Around the turn of the twenty-first century, what has come to be called the new mechanical philosophy (or, for brevity, the new mechanism) emerged as a framework for thinking about the philosophical assumptions underlying many areas of science, especially in sciences such as biology, neuroscience, and psychology. In this entry, we introduce and summarize the distinctive features of this framework, and we discuss how it addresses a range of classic issues in the philosophy of science, including explanation, metaphysics, the relations between scientific disciplines, and the process of scientific discovery. "
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/#toc
Fascinating. Great start to my week, thank you
Thank you very much!… And your comment was a great start to my week. My best, Frederick
What a profound and beautiful explanation of how the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and how emergent properties can arise from less complex materials. This is one of the amazing things about art, too; emotion can be evoked from the arrangement of paint on canvas, or , in this case, words on a page. Thank you for the reminder to consider the miracles around us!
Thank you for that very kind comment… I hadn't thought about this in terms of art, but you are quite right! You've given me a new perspective to think about. Have a wonderful week. Sincerely, Frederick
Not about the origin of life per se, but regarding the turnover of the molecules of which we are made: it’s like the Ship of Theseus!
EXACTLY! … You have an esoteric bent of mind exactly like mine… Your comment made me smile. Thank you for that. My best, Frederick
Im glad you included an Epilogue...because man's knowledge is finite. The belief in possibility always begets more knowledge & understanding, or at least, nurtures the pursuit thereof.
I agree…
Wow. Just wow.
I bought Walker’s book.
Enjoy the book! I found it fascinating… My best, Frederick
So cool, thank you Frederick! Wish I could stop by your office too. To dig into the identity and consciousness part, I often think about my changing sense of "me" or "you" over the years. As you write, "It’s the system’s higher-level activities — the emergent properties like thinking and talking — that define the ‘living’ you. It isn’t the temporary set of molecules I’m looking at now." If you are over 60 and if you've ever read a letter you wrote to someone when you were 18, there's this weird sense of both an overlap of "me," some things that still seem like "me" and a disconcerting sense that this person is NOT "me" and also (uncomfortably) does not fit my current stories of who I was at 18. How could I be so dumb/naive/whatever? In the letter are things I write about that I cannot even remember happening, references to people who I obviously thought were significant--but who the hell is "Paul?" Same thing happens when I listen to old tapes of concerts I performed 30 years ago--I often hear songs I sometimes do not remember writing at all! Or there is a whiff of familiarity, but I have no idea what inspired it. Truly strange, and yet, there's "my" voice on the tape (different than now, but still similar enough) and I recognize "my" writing style and still connect to it. This issue of self also comes up a lot in my music work with elders with advanced dementia. Family members often wonder if their loved one is really "in there." Their beloved person seems so changed, and they ARE so changed, both physically and obviously in their expression of "higher functions." But perhaps the person is no more, no less "in there" than I am compared to earlier times in my life. This may not be scientific, I don't know, but it does seem like there are patterns of consciousness or self-hood that persist over a lifetime, even as they also change. That sense of "me" and "you." When the music inspires a spark of light in their eyes, a laugh, or a comment, suddenly we can see that person with advanced dementia is present in a way that connects to who they used to be, who we used to think of them as anyway. They are still "in there!"
What a beautiful, well articulated and insightful comment! I agree with your nuanced understanding of both the overlap and the unfamiliarity we have with our former selves. Ideally, our long-term relationships should help us understand and reconcile those two perspectives. Interestingly, though, as the years go by, I find myself recognizing more mysteries, having more questions, and being more uncertain about the workings of the human mind. In any event, if you did stop by my office, we would end up spending hours talking about these topics, I am sure. By the way, when I first read your comment I thought about the thoughtfulness of your music (which I thoroughly enjoy)… A thoughtfulness that was reflected, once again, in what you wrote here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Sincerely, Frederick
This was a wonderful essay! It brightened my morning.
The question of how to recognize if something is alive will be a very crucial one once we actually start detailed explorations of other planets (so far we’ve barely scratch the surface of Mars, but that will change, I think, in time). But here on earth, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment regarding pornography seems apt:” I know it when I see it.“
Thank you so much! I completely agree with your comment… Who knows what wonderful and intriguing life forms are out there in the universe? Or, for that matter, in the depths of our oceans, or the nooks and crannies of our rainforests. It seems that almost every month there's some story about a new species that's been discovered, or some new unicellular organism that's been identified. It's all a wonder to me. Thank you again for your comment. Sincerely, Frederick
I often say that we really do not need to go into outer space to find aliens. They exist right here on planet Earth!
Our planet is a marvel. Life is a marvel. And the entire universe is a marvel. And all we have to do to appreciate these things is open our eyes and look!
Agreed…
Now that's what I call a lecture!
Lovely post to start my morning. Your students are lucky to have you.
If you’ll indulge me, I wrote about the mind-blowing realization that we don’t find healing and regrowth mind-blowing here:
https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/i-believe-in-the-resurrection-of
Thank you so much… And thank you very much for the link I will definitely read it today!
Design Without a Designer?
Design Without a Designer?
ALMOST 150 years have passed since Charles Darwin proposed that natural selection explains life’s complexity and diversity. However, his theory of evolution and its modern variations have recently come under attack from those who believe that the marvelously fine-tuned architecture of living organisms indicates purposeful design. Even a number of scientists with solid credentials do not accept the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see on earth.
Some such scientists offer a counterargument—known as intelligent design, or ID—asserting that design in creation is firmly supported by biology, mathematics, and common sense. They seek to include discussion of this idea in the science curriculum in schools. The so-called evolution wars are raging mainly in the United States, but similar trends are reported in England, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Serbia, and Turkey.
A Puzzling Omission
There is usually, however, a conspicuous omission in the carefully worded defense of intelligent design. That is the absence of reference to a designer. Do you believe that design is conceivable without a designer? Advocates of intelligent design “make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be,” reported The New York Times Magazine. Writer Claudia Wallis stated that intelligent design proponents are “careful not to bring God into the discussion.” And Newsweek magazine commented that “I.D. has nothing to say on the existence and identity of the designer.”
You can appreciate, though, that it is futile to try to evade the question of the designer. How could the explanation involving design in the universe and of life itself be complete if the existence and identity of the designer were concealed or not even considered?
To an extent, the debate on whether to invoke a designer or not revolves around these questions: Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?
Thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts Frederick. In 1959, whilst pregnant ( !) an atheist, evolutionist and a Marxist at heart, I pondered on those kind of thoughts. (What is life etc). Thankfully in 1961 I received more satisfying answers along the lines of the above article I read. (Especially satisfying answers to those last three questions which I would be happy to share with anyone with an open mind on these sorts of issues). Have a wonderful day everyone.
Ps. Personally. I am still thankful to be “alive” at 85yrs of age, to smell the roses and be enchanted by a butterfly, neither of which are necessary to remain “Alive” are they? . They are gifts for us to enjoy in an ungrateful world.
You're looking fairly spry for 85 ... At least to these 77 year-old eyes. 😉🙂
But I remember reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" some dozen years ago -- fairly decent defense of "intelligent design":
https://www.amazon.ca/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/
However, I kinda think he fell short in not giving more credence to self-organization -- still kind of magical though. Pretty clever of Jehovah to "design" the universe that way ... 😉🙂
Thankyou. Agreed
> "whilst pregnant ( !) an atheist, evolutionist and a Marxist at heart, I pondered on those kind of thoughts ..."
Sounds like you, like St. Paul, had something of a revelation on the road to Damascus? 😉🙂
Quite understandable, and for many "reasons".
Good morning. I sincerely thank you for this wonderfully thoughtful and thought-provoking comment. Personally, I tend not to think that there is a designer, although I'm humble in that opinion. I think the systems that we see in the universe are self designing and self organizing. If they were not, none of us would be here. Whether or not there is a designer, the systems have to organize in such a way that they continue to function. Unless, of course, you think that the designer makes each one independently and then maintains it meticulously over time. I think the more important point for people to understand is that we are dynamic, complex, ever-changing systems. Understanding that brings a sense of compassion, tolerance, and insight to our dealings with one another. If I recognize the fact that my children, for instance, will change over time, I approach them differently than I would if I thought that there was some "ideal" condition that defined what it meant to be a human being. In other words, understanding the complexities of biology lead you to appreciate the diversity of biological systems.
It made me very happy to read your final lines. Every day that we have is a joyous gift… Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. Sincerely, Frederick
Thankyou.
Thank you, great read to start my day.
And thank you for starting my day with a kind comment! Sincerely, Frederick