Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 412654" data-attributes="member: 4720">Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.&nbsp; Perhaps I should have used a less strong word.No, I'm with you on this.&nbsp; In fact, I probably go a bit further...The debates about &quot;life&quot; and &quot;species&quot; are just some of the things that convinced me &quot;definition&quot; is a meaningless concept.&nbsp; Abstract concepts can be axiomatic.&nbsp; Almost nothing in the real world is axiomatic (and I only include the word &quot;almost&quot; in order to avoid a conceptual axiom <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).&nbsp; Life exists in the real world, therefore there is nothing axiomatic about life, IMO.As far as I've been taught, not all of them.&nbsp; But I'm not an expert on bacteria, I'm a neuro-physiologist.&nbsp; I concede the possibility that I received inaccurate or incomplete data there and I have not had the time or inclination to track it down to the brass tacks.&nbsp; I'm busy enough as it is.&nbsp; I DO know that no one I've ever worked with has included &quot;active homeostasis&quot; as part of their &quot;definition&quot; of life.&nbsp; I suppose after things cool down around here, I might have time for a literature search on it...As for viruses, it's entirely a matter of perspective.&nbsp; For example, a virus infected cell in my body is busily metabolizing, but not on my behalf.&nbsp; That metabolis is directed to the virus' ends.&nbsp; Whose cell is it then?&nbsp; It belongs to the DNA running its machinery, IMO.&nbsp; If my body discovers that one of my cells is under control of outsider DNA, there's no negotiation.&nbsp; There's no holding back because &quot;it's one of ours.&quot;&nbsp; The cell is treated as an outsider and destroyed.&nbsp; Once the cell's metabolism is hijacked, it's the virus' cell, and the virus' metabolism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 412654, member: 4720"] Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Perhaps I should have used a less strong word. [B][/B] No, I'm with you on this. In fact, I probably go a bit further... The debates about "life" and "species" are just some of the things that convinced me "definition" is a meaningless concept. Abstract concepts can be axiomatic. Almost nothing in the real world is axiomatic (and I only include the word "almost" in order to avoid a conceptual axiom :) ). Life exists in the real world, therefore there is nothing axiomatic about life, IMO. [B][/B] As far as I've been taught, not all of them. But I'm not an expert on bacteria, I'm a neuro-physiologist. I concede the possibility that I received inaccurate or incomplete data there and I have not had the time or inclination to track it down to the brass tacks. I'm busy enough as it is. I DO know that no one I've ever worked with has included "active homeostasis" as part of their "definition" of life. I suppose after things cool down around here, I might have time for a literature search on it... As for viruses, it's entirely a matter of perspective. For example, a virus infected cell in my body is busily metabolizing, but not on my behalf. That metabolis is directed to the virus' ends. Whose cell is it then? It belongs to the DNA running its machinery, IMO. If my body discovers that one of my cells is under control of outsider DNA, there's no negotiation. There's no holding back because "it's one of ours." The cell is treated as an outsider and destroyed. Once the cell's metabolism is hijacked, it's the virus' cell, and the virus' metabolism. [/QUOTE]

Verification