Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:19:54 +0100
>From: Gene Kofman[SMTP:gene.k@mailexcite.com]
>
>Magnus:
>>and not think it is DQ when it isn't.
>I believe, everything we think *is* static. One experiences DQ, practices it,
>but
>does not think it.
Right, what I was trying to say was that we will be able to tell DQ
apart from SQ when we see it not be deceived by someone faking it.
>Magnus:
>>metabolism and reproduction can be faked without us calling it life.
>I agree, but somehow we know it's faked. If we analyze how do we know it's
>fake then
>we'll come up with definition of life. I think, live object/subject must be
>based
>on a cell structure. Cell that can metabolize and divide itself into two.
I'm sure many biologists have very good definitions of life, but I'm
not interested because I don't think life should be set as the
definition
of the organic level.
Reproduction *was* a very essential part of the first patterns of the
second
level by the time they formed. It was by far the most dynamic process
the
earth had ever seen. It was the only way for those patterns to move up
the
static ladder. But it is nevertheless DQ and should not be a part of the
definition of the organic level.
Magnus
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST