|
It is actually interesting to note that it is only a upshot of ever presence that we die from them. I would not assign them intention or some strong teleological order that makes them kill us. Their presence seems to kill us and then them in some cases which is odd when you think about it. As for what is living and what is a organism, it is an issue not many want to touch. It is partially because the concept of living used to have a ontological status. Charles Wolfe has a work titled The Concept of Organism: Historical, Philosophical and Scientific Perspectives that is a good overview of it.
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:
That is one argument made. I believe that is one view in what is called biosemiotics. Thomas Sebeok and Karlo von Uexhull made claims like that. Karlo von Uexhull should not be confused with his father Jacob von Uexhull. The claim was that life is characterized by semiosis. Semiosis is a process including meaning and interpretation. Molecules become interpreted as part of life processes that structure relations. One example is replication would be what you considered the error prone polymerase. The ability for it to cohere in different ways may be an emergent feature of a process.The problem would however be that it may not be a good idea to make the feature of metabolism of ATP as exhibiting the process of having the ontological property of life. The problem is that you risk making life analytic with some form of thermodynamic process.I say form because cutting off the part of that process that makes life or somehow gives things life as a specific ontological may not make sense. Why do we focus for instance on the agent or our designation of unity of a organism versus lets say the acting signal itself?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 22:44
|
|