Where did "life" get its drive to reproduce and keep going

[Valjean]

Replicate through their host.

A computer virus does the same thing. Is it alive.
Virus can't reproduce, they are assembled by their hosts. They're just snippets of DNA code saying "copy this sequence. Repeat...."

 

[We Never Know]

A computer virus does the same thing. Is it alive.
Virus can't reproduce, they are assembled by their hosts. They're just snippets of DNA code saying "copy this sequence. Repeat...."

A computer isn't alive.
A virus hijacks its living host and tricks it to replicate the virus.

 

[Valjean]

A computer isn't alive.
A virus hijacks its living host and tricks it to replicate the virus.

It utilizes available replication hardware. Whether that hardware exists in an organic or electronic apple makes no difference. It's still just a software program.

 

[We Never Know]

It utilizes available replication hardware. Weather that hardware exists in an organic or electronic apple makes no difference. It's still just a software program.

Sure it does. The computer and a computer virus is not life and they are created by an intelligence for reasons.
Life and biological virus' aren't(the evidence doesn't show they are).

 

[Valjean]

What do their origins have to do with their nature? Neither has any of the features normally associated with life. Both have the features you've proposed as evidence of life.
Either both are alive, or neither.

 

[We Never Know]

What do their origins have to do with their nature? Neither has any of the features normally associated with life. Both have the features you've proposed as evidence of life.
Either both are alive, or neither.

Neither virus is alive.
A computer host isn't alive.
A human host is alive.
A computer and it's virus has been created by intelligence for a purpose.
Life and a biological virus arose naturally.

You don't see a difference?

 

[Valjean]

Neither virus is alive.
A computer host isn't alive.
A human host is alive.
A computer and it's virus has been created by intelligence for a purpose.
Life and a biological virus arose naturally.

You don't see a difference?

I see the difference, and I agree, but I didn't think we were arguing intelligence, origins or purpose. I thought we were discussing whether "alive" applies to viruses.

 

[David T]

Still not following.
Objective and subjective aren't terms I'd normally associate with natural selection. Natural selection's a process; an automatic, unguided, selective process.

First, life interconnected is not scientific but self evident. I understood that before school on my own. Natural selection is a response of Darwin to culture in regards to intent or artificial selection. He rightfully eliminated the intellect as having anything to do with anything at all other than a simple thumb in a chimp brain. I understood this before school, although slightly simpler.

since the intellect has zero to do with nature and Its the youngest thus the most undeveloped aspect of biological development. Its nothing special at all.

Third, every decent artist knows this already. Self evident even if they cant articulate that. Every non artist does not know even this.

So is scientific narrative natural selection an intellectual statement about nature, or is nature?

I have already stated the intellect has zero to do with nature, its merely a thumb and zero more than that therefore the statements it creates are not nature itself but intellectual images about nature, thus always subjective to nature itself. Again artists do not confuse the canvas with the directly observed. Everyone else does.

The narrative itself is always changing which has zero to do with the intellect, and it has everything to do with nature itself. Not unlike a tree, will be a tree, regardless of any idea it may have about anything at all along its growth.
Science narrative is an intellectualized painting a canvas about nature it is not ever is nature and is always subject, subjective to nature and always changing. Science is a map of the territory which is only accurate at that moment because the territory is always in constant movement and change independent of the intellect.

Heraclitus called this the LOGOS. Idiotic religious nut jobs called this the intellect. Ha!!!!! Now thats funny.

 

[HonestJoe]

Blind undriven replication?

Initially sure, why not?

 

[exchemist]

Instead of drive... urge, impulse, need, initiative, push, impel, desire, instinct, compel, etc. Pick one or give your own.

That's what I feared you meant. None of these makes any sense, scientifically, in the context of a naturally self-replicating structure.

 

[Valjean]

What exactly did darwin experience? Life interconnected. Its self evident no science at all needed. In fact in a culture where that was not be self evident one would need some crackpot idea maybe even religious, of each form of life being created individually.

Not just interconnected; interrelated -- in a long line if descent. That's what was novel about his observations.
"Self evident?" What was self evident -- that different creatures interacted? That may be true, but it isn't what Darwin's remembered for.

in such an idiotic culture, stumbling onto the self evident, life interconnected, would seem deep and profound! I cant imagine any culture so idiotic can you!? No thats fiction not possible.

Sorry, but it wasn't the interconnectedness that was 'deep and profound'. As you say, this was self evident.
And what is this "idiotic culture" you're talking about? What, exactly, are you labeling idiotic?

So moving on, self evident no sciece needed, "life interconnected, the fact and narrative darwins and sciences natural selection.

Again, not following.
"No science needed?" -- for what? Are you saying that Darwin discovered the self-evident, and that the observation merited no further study?
It was not just self-evident interconnectedness that Darwin discovered, but descent with modifications. That's what was not self-evident, and that's what is fertile ground for scientific inquirey

Is that narrative objective or subjective to life interconnected fact?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by"objective to" or "subjective to." Clarify?

I dont confuse science narrative about a douglas fir tree with the actual tree. I am pretty sure the tree came long before the science narrative. Most the evidence points to that and it has zero dependency on science narrative.

No-one's denying the fact of a tree. What is this "narrative" you seem to have trouble with? "Most evidence points to..." what? What is this "dependency" you're talking about?
Seriously, what you're trying to say here?

Linguistic narratives like mathmatical narratives can take on very very false notions in the intellect of being objective, both in the sane and insane.

Am I the only one who can't make heads or tails of this? Please restate what your asking clearly.

The correct answer scientific narrative is purely subjective to life imterconnected fact. It determines when how and where that narrative plays out not science itself. Science mearly records that over time nothing more. The science recording is only the percsption at any given point in time subject to nature itself. Not unlike the bible.

What does "subjective to life" mean? What is this "scientific narrative?" If it needs an answer it's evidently some kind of question.
Please explain what you're asking here.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if you're hiking in the woods and you accidently trip over a tree root and fall...and in that same instant a hunter mistakenly shot at you thinking you were a deer(for example) and the shot only missed you because you accidently tripped and fell...... How is the accident of you tripping and falling a negative?

You left off the rest of the story. The hunter missed you, but you broke your leg in the fall, and bear the hunter wounded killed you,

What you described fits the anthropomorphic definition of accident in an extreme hypothetical example. The issue is the terminology used to describe science and science related cause and effect outcomes in the nature of our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

The face on Mars is accidental,

No, the face of Mars is the product of natural processes and events as is the face of the earth,

. . .hitting a deer with your car or a tree falling on your house is accidental.

This fits well within the accepted definition of accidental.

I use accidental to mean not engineered.

No thisdoes not the definition of accidental, The Willow Oak in my front yard is neither accidental nor engineered.

There is an underlying problem with the terminology such as, accidental and random, are often used by fundamental Creationists to describe the natural process of thing such as evolution and abiogenesis, and justify literal Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design.

 

[wellwisher]

Entropy potential is an engineering concept, that I developed, based on lab observations and easy to run experiments you can do at home.

For example, osmosis is colligative property. A colligative property is a property that is only dependent on the concentration of solute, but it is not dependent on the chemical character of the solute.

In other words, in osmosis, negative or positive ions, with one or more charges, as well as neutral molecules, will all generate the same osmotic pressure, as long as the concentration is the same. Since charge does not matter or have any impact, osmotic pressure is not driven by the EM force. Instead, it is driven by entropy.

That being said, I can generate an entropy based potential; entropy potential, to suit my needs, by simply adjusting the concentration on one side of an osmotic device. There will be a time delay, but the water will accommodate my needs and generate a final entropy pressure=force/area, that I can calculate and predict, even before I get started. I call this entropy based force, the entropic force, since it is created by entropy. This is also a term, I invented, that is very descriptive of what is occurring. It is a fifth force of nature, used by life.

There are also other ways to set up a predictable and directed entropy potential. This is based on knowing that a system will seek a certain level of entropy, to meet the needs of an equilibrium environment. I can locally reduce this entropy, and it will express a fixed potential, as it restores equilibrium. Water and Oil works this way but with a twist, due some unique properties of water.

Water forms hydrogen bonds, while hydrogen bonds have both polar and covalent bonding character. The hydrogen bonds of water, act like a binary switch, which can go either way, based on the conditions. This shows up as low and high density domaines in in water. The polar side of the switch is denser and has higher entropy, while the covalent side of the switch is less dense and has lower entropy.

When we have an emulation of water and oil there is a lot of surface tension in the water. Tension means stretching, which is implicit of the covalent side of the water switch; less dense. This stretch hydrogen bond defines lowered entropy. The phase separation, back into two layers; oil and water, by lowering surface tension f the water, is flipping the switch to polar. This increases the entropy of the water; second law, on top of the enthalpy change. This extra drive allows water to man handle and set an entropy potential within the organics. Now there is potential to increase entropy. Enzymes only work in water since due to the binary switch affect unique to hydrogen bonding plus the four hydrogen bonds of water. Ammonia cannot form as many hydrogen bond with itself so the affect is much less.

The water and oil affect in cells lowers the free energy of the water via both entropy increase and enthalpy decrease. The organic; oil, lower enthalpy, but also lowers entropy. The result is a global entropy potential on the surface of all the organic structures. This is the basis for life.

If you look at a cell, in terms of the water-oil affect, the cell membrane is composed of some water within a predominant organic/oil phase, while the cytoplasm is some organics within a larger water phase. The entropy level will be different based on whether water is the dominant phase or not. Water will have less surface tension, if it is the predominate phase, thereby increasing the water entropy. The opposite is true when the organics are the predominant phase, such as in the membrane; more water surface tension.

This difference is reflected in the observation that the cell membrane or predominate organic phase is about transport, while the cytoplasm or predominate water phase is about synthesis. Synthesis reflects the higher entropy potential induce by water, on the secondary organic structures.

If we go back to the water and oil affect of a simple emulsion undergoing reversal, what you will observe as the emulsion begins to phase separate, oil droplets appearing through the emulsion. There is an integrated affect that occurs throughout the aqueous continuum. Water is the great integrator of life and helps to coordinates all organic things via global potentials within the water. These global potentials integrate via the hydrogen bonding switches, which can flip to transmit potential, without breaking the global hydrogen bonding grid.

The cell is also set up as a water-oil gradient. At one end or one pole we have the cell membrane, which is higher in water surface tension; lower water entropy. At the other extreme, is the DNA which is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. The high degree of DNA hydration reflects lower water surface tension or the higher water entropy pole of the gradient. This pole is where template activity occurs as the organics bead upon itself driven by an increase in water entropy as changes the membrane tweak that pole.

The processing of the genetic information within DNA is facilitated by highly discriminatory and strong protein binding. It has been shown that the interfacial water molecules can serve as 'hydration fingerprints' of a given DNA sequence is capable of carrying messages, as facilitated proton movement down the water wire, between binding sites in a similar, if complementary, manner to the electron transfer through the DNA residues with the DNA sequence determining the hydration pattern in the major and minor grooves .

Less perfect (that is, weaker) binding involves mainly secondary hydration water loss and so would allow sliding of the protein along the DNA . For example, about 110 water molecules are released on the binding of the restriction endonuclease EcoRI to its site GAATTC, leaving an essentially dry interface and firmly bound complex with binding constant ≈ 10,000 times that for nonspecific binding.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neither virus is alive.

I believe this is not clear depending on the definition of 'life,' and not all agree. Some consider viruses as examples of transitional forms from non-life to life in the earliest abiogenesis.

I consider viruses alive because they indeed reproduce, but depend on host cells to reproduce. They do have DNA and can mutate selectively to develop resistance to anti-virus drugs.

A computer host isn't alive.

A computer is not a live for different reasons than some scientists do not consider viruses alive.

Life and a biological virus arose naturally.

True

 

[Marcion]

Where did life, the first cells get the drive to replicate and keep going?
IMO if it hadn't existed before, how did the "drive to survive" come about in only cells?

I'm just curious of what answers will come forth besides god did it.

The will or drive to live is part of the natural flow in the great Circle of Creation in which firstly Consiousness is "frozen" into matter and energy (during the Big Bang) and after a further crudification process is triggered to liberate consciousness from unit beings on an individual level. This liberating stage in the Circle of Creation is what we call life and it is driven by the same Force or Causal Factor that drives the whole Circle of Creation.

 

[Thief]

A virus is not really considered life. However some disagree. But it needs other life to replicate.

ok....so the little buggers are parasites

as long as the chemistry is more than a simple chemical reaction

first we decide what life is
and then decide..... WHAT drives it

 

[Valjean]

First, life interconnected is not scientific but self evident. I understood that before school on my own. Natural selection is a response of Darwin to culture in regards to intent or artificial selection. He rightfully eliminated the intellect as having anything to do with anything at all other than a simple thumb in a chimp brain. I understood this before school, although slightly simpler.

Please explain what you mean by "life interconnected." Obviously I'm missing something.

Natural selection isn't a 'response'. It's a mechanism.
Darwin "eliminated the intellect as having anything to do with anything?" -- What does that mean? Darwin proposed an automatic, purposeless, non-intentional mechanism to explain biological change. That's all.

So is scientific narrative natural selection an intellectual statement about nature, or is nature?{/quote} It's none of this! It's a mechanism!
You seem to have a a very strange concept of natural selection.

I have already stated the intellect has zero to do with nature, its merely a thumb and zero more than that therefore the statements it creates are not nature itself but intellectual images about nature, thus always subjective to nature itself. Again artists do not confuse the canvas with the directly observed. Everyone else does.

The narrative itself is always changing which has zero to do with the intellect, and it has everything to do with nature itself. Not unlike a tree, will be a tree, regardless of any idea it may have about anything at all along its growth.
Science narrative is an intellectualized painting a canvas about nature it is not ever is nature and is always subject, subjective to nature and always changing. Science is a map of the territory which is only accurate at that moment because the territory is always in constant movement and change independent of the intellect.

What on Earth are you talking about? How does "intellect" fit into this -- and what is 'this'?

Can someone please explain to me what David T is talking about? I can't make heads or tails of it.

 

[Valjean]

Neither virus is alive.
A computer host isn't alive.
A human host is alive.
A computer and it's virus has been created by intelligence for a purpose.
Life and a biological virus arose naturally.

You don't see a difference?

I see a difference in origins, but not in kind. Both do the same thing and operate in the same way. Neither has any features usually associated with life. A software program isn't alive.

 

[David T]

Please explain what you mean by "life interconnected." Obviously I'm missing something.

Natural selection isn't a 'response'. It's a mechanism.
Darwin "eliminated the intellect as having anything to do with anything?" -- What does that mean? Darwin proposed an automatic, purposeless, non-intentional mechanism to explain biological change. That's all.

Darwins original drawing. He draws an interconnected structure or branching tree. That actually is self evident and not remotely scientific, no science needed. Independent of the fact the tree, is "i think" a huge gap between it and the tree. The reality is that is not actually literally accurate or true "i think" is on the tree itself literally. No gap. The tree determines the "i think" the "i think" has zero to do with the actual tree being the tree or existing for that matter. It merely is a leaf on that tree. Part of it not is it. One tiny leaf is all the intellect is, not that important, but wow it tends to convince itself it is.