Has anyone else thought about this too? 99% of an atom is empty space, 99% of the Universe is empty space. This kind of shit makes me think of Horton hears a who. What if like our whole existence/universe is just a cell in someone else's body, living and dying within seconds. It also makes me think about how if something is bigger it generally moves slower. This must mean smaller things move faster. I think that's why flys are able to dodge things. Their heart beats faster so time is perceived to be slower to them. It correlates to the way that we are able to move faster when our hearts moves faster. That's why cells die so fast, and in turn our universe is dying so slow from our perspectives. I don't know, I'm not an expert or anything, just thought about this when I was high.
We don't function well enough for a larger existence to comfortably exist. Well, it seems that way to me. Then again, maybe we're functioning juuuust right.
What if the universe is something inside something we haven't discovered yet? and not all cells die fast. Neurons stay alive pretty much your entire life. (80+ years)
No worries. Just so you know the theory stems from a misconception based on orbits. Solar systems Ans galaxies in no way resemble oor act like atoms or molecules. If our universe acts as a giant cell or atom its on a scale currently imossible to detect. Therefore like God or other religions this theory has no basis in "science" Its cool to think about though and here is a sweet video on the subject: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VivF5R4IFQ4&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
The evidence that the planet and its inhabitants are a type of super-organism are quite strong (ie we are the cells as you mentioned). It's not that far of a stretch, considering the highly fractalized nature of reality, to assume the universe is a super-super-organism as well.
Its a matter of definition. Do you consider a hive a super organism? Weather or not we are is just semantics
Well as defined within Systems Theory it is. Yes a hive is a S-O. I don't think its just semantics; it is just the way the universe orders itself (fractally). organismic systems on top of organismic systems = law of antecedents (self similar order on top of self similar order) (ie an infinite russian doll situation)
That just describes the idea that the universe itself is a system like everything that relies on its contents. It doesn't inply tthe universe will resemble an organism in the sense we see it
How do you distuingish a living organism from a machine? Let me again butress my prior statements by again drawing on Sally Goerner's work: "The Gaia hypothesis suggests that the dynamics of the biosphere (oceans, atmosphere, and biota) function like a single coherent self-organizing, self-regulating system. In short, the biosphere works alot like a living organism...Debates are couched in science but at heart the problem is one of root metaphors. Machines do not self-organize. A nonliving physical system does not spontaneously organize and regulate itself --- atleast not according to traditonal mechanistic beliefs." Just some food for thought. Thanks again for engaging in a constructive dialogue!
^ So if you program a machine to record information and assign it an organization function that will occur at (a function we determine as) random intervals, is it alive? 'Random' is nonexistent as far as we know, and the 'random' function we utilize is as random as we can determine - yet there's a mathematical equation behind it. Kind of hard to produce randomness if it can be produced, eh?
Which of these is not something a machnine does? 1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. 2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life. 3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. 4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. 5.Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. 6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis. 7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
There is nothing 'spontaneous' about a machine's processing/ordering: it is programmed in, not inherent to the thing itself. I am not arguing for the existence of a 'divine programmer', so that means self-organization is something inherent to organisms and the natural ecology without the need for an outside 'programer', contrary to a machine. Apologies if I am missing your point. Great list, thanks for contributing!
Your point is ambiguous. You give alleged life-specific actions, while asking which of these machines don't do; implying that machines do them all. But I will respond under the assumption you are positing that machines are different from life. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I'm sure others could use the clarification anyway. Think of nuclear power plants - they're absolutely littered with machines whose function is to cool the plant down so no reactions are set off. What about a more localized and familiar idea? Home heating units. Isn't their purpose to create a homeostatic temperature for its inhabitants? You're misleading people here. Organization does not require cells - organization is simply a defined order. I'll shit myself if you can find a machine without order - wouldn't that disprove the whole idea that machines are different than life? If your main point here is about cells themselves - (I'm not the most familiar with them so please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't cells simply bits of matter that contain genetic information? Isn't genetic information simply inherent info that is passed on from parent to child? That seems metaphorical to a creator and machine.. but I could be getting confused here So for a machine to be considered 'living'; would it have to be operated off of an independent energy source? Perhaps solar or wind energy? This can be debunked by visiting a retirement home. All of which can and have been programmed. Simple versions were made public in the late 90s to children discovering the internet.. remember SmartBot? SmartBot. Your examples are nice but misleading. I have created programs able to reproduce in basic Computer Science classes (back when I majored in it). You haven't considered parenting abilities. I feel like that might be a differentiation between life and machine - the perceived desire to help your offspring live and succeed. We are created from DNA, machines from code. Everything else is a reaction to a stimulus. (Nature vs. nurture) There is nothing spontaneous about humans or plants or lions or beetles, either : it's all a mixture of genetics and the organism's experiences within its environment(s).
Aren't computer programs/code intelligently designed by humans? Where then did the programming/code for DNA come from? I think the code/program metaphor for DNA is kinda weak, unless you are willing to accept intelligent design or vitalism. And if there is no 'divine-programmer', wouldn't you consider the emergence of such a thing, and therefore all life itself, as spontaneous/self-emergent? While I agree that DNA/Genes are undoubtedly important to development, I believe they largely exist to facilitate protein synthesis (ie provide basic building blocks). In other words, they provide the building materials, but do not provide the blueprint. They cannot fully account for animal behavior, habits, or morphogenesis; nor can traditional notions of 'environmental stimuli' provide a full accounting either (even in conjunction with DNA). Take homeobox genes for example; they were originally thought to account for morphology until they were found to be pretty much identical across all organisms. DNA, Genes, and EnvSti also cannot account for other phenomena such as self-correcting regulation of damaged embryos, etc. The mechanical view of life breaks down in the face of these sorts of dilemmas iyam. Regardless, I don't want to get too far off track from the OP, but your points are well taken and I respect your opinions even if we don't see eye to eye. Take care.
First off I have no position and I posted said definitions as a copy and paste from a biology article about life. Those are the common factors used by biologists to determine life. They are not my examples and I don't see how they are "misleading" as they are all perfect examples of the process's that are listed. The metabolism one might be slightly incorrect, ussualy it is qualified as "for atleast part of the organisms life cycle" Again they are definitions of life from wikipedia thats why the under organization it says made of one or more cells because a cell is defined as the basic unit of life. We don't consider virus's alive because they arn't cells, they are just a strang of DNA or RNA. My purpose in posting these definitions was to stimulate conversation, not to argue any particular postion regarding the metaphor of cells as machines. IMO cells are kind of like tiny machines. All machines are made of smaller parts so it follows that bodies are like large complex machines as well. Don't tell me what I haven't considered Does a sponge care about its off spring? Do plants care about their offsping? Do bacteria care about their offspring Does fungi care about its offsping? the answer is no. Parenting ability is a social behavior that some types of life display but not a defining feature of all life.