Misplaced Pages

4) "Describing life simply as a 'concept' is not enough. Life exhibits observable and measurable physico-chemical phenomena, and it serves best to list the specific characteristics/definitions of life as understood by biologists." -BI

I don't recall ever saying that "describing life simply as a concept" would be "enough." If I actually did (which I didn't) I would now correct myself (which I don't have to) and state that the concept aspect is just relevant to the introductory sentence: The language/dictionary/word meaning aspects of "life" are important, but don't need to overwhelm the lede. It will of course go quickly into other things. Alchemy-derived and science-y opinions for example. -SV

5) "I look forward to continue this constructive discussion and continue to improve this article in partnership."

Quite a nice way to end this, actually. But why then all the nonsensical reverts and pontificating rejectionism? It's sad that I have to turn in to such an asshole just to deal with things like this that even a third grader would turn his nose up at. -Stevertigo 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo: A dead organism is an organism that does not exhibit biochemical processes.

I told you before that I am not interested in debates but improving the article. Your comments about possession, destroying things, biological machines, nuking the introduction, being an "asshole", etc. demonstrate that you will benefit from reading the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages and WP:NOTFORUM. Also, omitting hostility in general, will be an asset to you. A required one at that.

Despite your refusal to acknowledge that biology is the science in charge of the study of life, the fact remains so. If you want to debate the The Truth about life, you may proceed to the forum of your choice. If you want to edit this article, no drama is required (really!); simply do the required research, make the changes and make sure you include quality references. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: BatteryIncluded, with his above response, deleted my entire comment from the talk, calling it "inflammatory." I reverted his removal, and replaced his above comment along with my own, and the new one below, but may have lost a minor edit or two of his. In comment I instructed BatteryIncluded to consult WP:TALK, where it says 'do not ever remove or alter anyone else's comments on talk pages.' His assertion that my comments were inflammatory were no doubt due to my usage of a particular epithet, but as this was directed at myself and not him, there was no issue of a "personal attack." While removal of the offending epithet would be appropriate if it was a personal attack, removing entire comment blocks is almost always a violation of our core principles.

(To BI, per the above comment). Keep in mind that our issue began with two hostile acts. Mine was that I changed the wording of the article! Yours was that you reverted it, claiming the previous one was better, or that the latter one was not acceptable. All I have done thus far is demonstrate that the current version doesn't actually make any coherent sense, and when unraveled, appears to be entirely not competent. Therefore you raising issues like reliable sources, original research, " in charge of life," personal attacks (Which? Against myself?), etc., makes no difference at all, if the first sentence which you still claim to be scientifically accurate, if not well sourced, is so plainly erroneous as to make blanking an acceptable alternative to keeping it. (But this fact doesn't seem to stop you from wanting to keep it, or else reject any attempt at improving it).

I don't like blanking though, and simply choose to "nuke" or "destroy" anyone's concepts of keeping the old one. Have I not done so? And where therefore in those 5 Pillars you point to, does it say one cannot remove the erroneous, and obliterate any concept in which the erroneous is defended or promoted? Dealing with science-y editorial dogmas (not science dogma, which is real but different) is no different than dealing with bad editing on some New Age article. And to add it all up, your expressions are condescending at best: "despite your refusal to acknowledge that biology is the science in charge of the study of life, the fact remains so," is like using a term like "science-denier." It's just not a worthy concept.

As far as steps to improve the article go, its important to step back and take a look at what's going on. In this case, there are some basic issues:

1) Life is a concept - the opposite of both death and inanimate matter, that is uese to distinguish living things from not-living things. Note that while you state a "dead organism" is an "organism," it is not. An organism, by definition, has synergistic self-sustaining functions - not decaying cells. The word for a 'former organism' is usually "body" or "corpse."

2) The article assumes that because "biology is the science in charge of the study of life" that therefore "biology is in charge of the life article." It is not, and though it usually has some interesting things to say, these have to be put into context in order to make it work.

3) The current version was written by someone who understands how to use sources and that chemistry has something to do with biology, but doesn't understand English, scientific language, or what biology actually is. The term "biological machine" is appropriate and important:

a. an "organelle" is a machine that performs one or two chemical operations which sustain its function

b. a "cell" is an assembly of "organelles" that work synergistically to sustain its function

c. an "organism" is an assembly of "cells" that work synergistically to sustain its function

Each of which are machines. Indeed you are right in suggesting that "sentience" does not fit in the context of "biology", but as

1) our bodies are biological machines, assembled from smaller and smaller such machines

2) human beings represent the pinnacle of "life," as far as we empirically know

3) most people don't consider themselves to be "machines," despite its factual basis in biology..

..Therefore "human life", an essential dimension within "life" or even "biological life," is not entirely within the domain of "biology."

Note that you may argue that "human life" is a separate concept from "life," and therefore the articles should be different. Which is true. But in a human context, "human life" is highly relevant within the concept of "life" itself. And anyway the point is that (paraphrasing you) "despite your refusal to accept that 'biology' is a separate concept from 'life,' the fact remains so," and therefore biology is not "in charge of" anything here. An essential dimension, yes. "In charge of," no.

With all that out of the way, I appreciate that you 1) helpfully suggest that I remove "hostility" and "drama" from my being, and I understand that 2) your above suggestion comes from your realization that you have been thus far less than helpful. I understand you wish us to turn the page? I accept. Thanks. -Stevertigo 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of talk comments

Note: Comment below (except for the comment "POV monologue") is the same comment as above. It was copied here in the context of re-adding text comments removed by BatteryIncluded.

(POV monologue and debate forum-like entries by Svertigo deleted)

Note': This is the most recent comment by BatteryIncluded, stating his reasons for violating WP:TPOC (cf. WP:CIVIL):

Once again, I removed forum-like entries, inflamatory comments, POV and original research that does not serve the discussion on how to improve this article. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate: (WP:NOTFORUM).

Although it is entertaining seeing Stevertigo drum a war tune against the wisdon of Biology, the intelect of fellow editors and create a new section entitled "Stevertigo vs. BatteryIncluded", this is not the place for it.

For the third time: I am not entertaining a debate on your Truth about life or the meaning of life, or disecting your treatese on the meaning of the word "meaning" (sic.), or your original interpretation of what biology should or should not study, as that has a place somewhere else in the internet.

If you want to fix the grammar or edit the article, please do so. If you don't like your entries edited by other users, no not write on Misplaced Pages. Again, make sure you leave aside terms like "possession", "destroying things", "sentinence", "biological machines", "nuking the introduction", "being an asshole", etc. and avoid original research.

It is straight forward and no dramas are required (Misplaced Pages:Five pillars): do the required research, make the changes and include quality references. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that an organism is alive because it displays biological processes, is a fancy way of saying that an organism that's alive shows signs of life. Can you say "circular reasoning"? :) Also, some scientists say the earth itself is a "alive", in a sense. Where does that fit into the discussion? Baseball Bugs carrots 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: User BatteryIncluded removed my comments (violating WP:TPOC) twice now, which I have restored. I have also highlighted his comments above in bold text. Without having read them, I will simply note that among the reasons he states for removing my comments is "original research." This is a talk page. There is no issue of "original research" here, save that which can be identified and clarified through discussion. In addition to defending an incompetent version and violating CIVIL policy with regard to talk, BI also uses nonsensical references to policy, and, as Baseball above has noted "circular reasoning." Accurate. -Stevertigo 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw this situation on WP:ANI. No editor has any business removing or altering other editors' fair comments on article talk pages. You're right that "original research" does not figure into it, on the talk page. If he tries it again, bring it up again at ANI, or report it to WP:AIV as vandalism, since that's what it effectively is. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll see he gets your message. -Stevertigo 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More from BI

Dissecting BatteryIncluded's most recent comments:

"Once again, I removed forum-like entries, inflamatory comments, POV and original research that does not serve the discussion on how to improve this article."

1. "I removed" - violating WP:TPOC and WP:CIVIL
2. "Once again" - repeated violation
3. "forum-like entries" - a false characterization and false reference to policy, see WP:TPOC
4. "inflammatory comments" - nevertheless not yours to touch
5. "POV" - this is a talk page
6. "original research" - this is a talk page
7. "There are a number of... WP:NOTFORUM" - "go elsewhere" is not a valid argument
8. "Although it is entertaining" - condescending and trolling at the same time
9. "drum a war tune against the wisdon of Biology" - its "wisdom," not "wisdon" and its "biology," not "Biology," and the only other thing wrong with this statement is that there is no "wisdom of biology" anyway
10. "the intelect of fellow editors" - its "intellect," not "intelect," and I can only consider you a "fellow editor" if you stop acting like a troll
11. "and create a new section" - adding (not "creating") section headers to long threads is nominal for talk pages
12. "entitled "Stevertigo vs. BatteryIncluded"" - yes, well you can rename it if you like, just as I can do the same.
13. "For the third time" - indeed. "Circular reasoning" (quoting Baseball) x 3 from you now.
14. "I am not entertaining a debate on your Truth about life or the meaning of life" - only a troll mistakes a comedy essay for policy.
15. "or disecting your treatese on the meaning of the word "meaning" (sic.)," - the word was "semantics," and it has a meaning.
16. "or your original interpretation of what biology should or should not study" - Ive never said what "biology should or should not study," only that this article be intelligently written by someone not a troll.
17. "as that has a place somewhere else in the internet" - a troller who says "go elsewhere" is not very interesting to me.
18. "If you want to fix the grammar or edit the article, please do so" - I'm not going to just clean up your numerous spelling errors, I'm going to clean up your errors, period.
19. "If you don't like your entries edited by other users, no not write on Misplaced Pages" - You used the rollback button on my changes to go back an inanely inaccurate version. How is that "editing?"
20. "Again, make sure you leave aside terms like "possession", "destroying things", "sentinence", "biological machines", "nuking the introduction", "being an asshole", etc. and avoid original research" - "Possession" may mean "possession of a soul," a comment not related to article discussion. "Destroying things" may mean "destroying concepts" (ie. invalid ones), "sentience" you may want to study up on, "biological machine" - see explanation above section at bottom, "nuking the introduction" another false quote - the term is "nuking ", "being an asshole" not accurately quoted, but as I of course am one I am free to refer to myself thus, "avoid original research" from a TROLL, no less. Thanks again for your sentient behavior and scientific concepts. -Stevertigo 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After 35,000 bits of Steve's nightly forum drama, I read not one entry directed to improve the article. For the fourth time: I have no desire to to participate in your existencialist monologues and certainly I have no inclination to debate your beliefs and your original interpretations of scientific research. If you want to edit the article, go ahead, nobody is stopping you, just know I will delete again pseudocientific terms as those used in science fiction such as ("sentience" and "biological machines"). Most of your rant here has been a weak attempt to justify them.... As a molecular biologist, I will keep calling you on every original research entry and expect quality references, so you better do your homework right before submition. Regarding your forum rants, note this text in WP:NOTFORUM: "There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate." Check them out, as they are surely better outlet for the material you keep posting.

Cheers BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you did not remove my comments this time. This means that you are learning how to get along with people you disagree with, and that your opinions will be regarded, if they are expressed intelligently.

I have stated in very clear terms where the lede is inaccurate. You have not addressed these directly. I will now make certain changes to the lede, per my issues listed above. You will not revert any change I make. If you have any issues, you will discuss them point by point here on the talk page, with me and anyone else who has something to say.

I understand you are a scientist, and have some expertise. While this expertise is to be regarded, it is not to be deferred to without question, and particularly so when you lack an understanding of our basic interaction principles, such that you make several egregious discussion errors. I have made one or two myself, but in my defense, I actually had a point in that the current version is inadequate. You did not have such a point. With both of us now expressing ourselves clearly, there should be no reason for any further such conflict. Regards, and happy editing. -Stevertigo 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletions were not out of "disagreement" as you think but simple fluff cleaning.

Please rest assured that I will revert and/or edit any additional inacuracies you may add to the article and that it will not based on Wikidemocracy to satisfy your ego, but on scientific accuracy and relevant citations. Cheers. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concept of "fluff cleaning" appears to be original research. Can you supply a source to back up your writing? Baseball Bugs, above, used the term "vandalism" instead of your term "fluff cleaning." You're a scientist - figure it out: Which of these two views do you think is more "accurate?" Some very scientific results will be quickly forthcoming if you want to test it. :-)

As far as reverting anything goes, I state again that you will not do so without consequence, both to your ego and to your ability to further claim control of this or any article. In scientific terms: WP:NINJA <∞< WP:CIVIL+WP:CONS .

And again, "scientific accuracy" is not the only concept relevant here. "Reading competency" is also relevant and it is on this basis that I criticized the lede sentence. I will use sources and not only scientific ones - "science" after all does not dominate "life." What you tyrannically mock as "Wikidemocracy," (or "wikiality") I and others call "consensus." Finally, whether or not I receive a little "ego" boost from correcting certain scientists on matters of logic, reason, and linguistic competency is of course nobody's business but my own. Good night, morning, or otherwise. -Stevertigo 08:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you got upset because I made you go redo your homework and also produce the required references. However, you know very well I could not put your emotional sensitivity over the nature of Misplaced Pages. Live with it. I hope you learned that no cutting corners or long-winded dramas were required, only an honest effort at accuracy, research and citing quality references.

I see your change in the article and I celebrate your self-diagnosed "asshole behavior" (sic.) did not prevent you from reinserting science fiction's pseudoscientific terminology again. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BI commented: "No evidence of ET life, whether religious, scientific, philosophical, empirical." True, though the previous version used the language "no evidence at this time," and I do take some credit for trying to deal with it a bit less subjectively. "I celebrate your self-diagnosis.." - Indeed. You know, the world championships are coming up. You may want to try out, though competition is fierce. :D

As far as "reinserting science fiction's pseudoscientific terminology again" - can you please explain exactly which such terms you are talking about. Obviously I'm not a scientist and I wouldn't know science from pseudoscience if it talked to me like a chimpanzee. Explain. -Stevertigo 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede section

Excuse me for butting in. I normally work on the articles on medieval logic and philosophy. I know very little about biology (although Aristotle had an interesting definition of 'life'). However on logical grounds alone I had to change the first sentence. Life is not a concept, although the concept of life is a concept. Life is a characteristic of living things, usually thought to consist (if the standard definitions are correct) of certain key functions (6 or 7 of them I think from Google). As a rule of thumb, any definition or introduction on Misplaced Pages should not be a million miles away from what is found in any standard reference work. No reference work defines 'life' as a 'concept'. Peter Damian (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the definition is not very helpful. It goes on to mention self-sustaining life functions. So life is what things with 'life functions' have? This is almost circular. The next para says that "In biology, "life" (cf. biota) is a quantitative empirical characteristic of all functioning organisms". What is a 'quantitative empirical characteristic'? Does it mean that the characteristic of life can be measured quantitatively? What does 'empirical' mean? Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't consider your edits "butting in", for the simple reason that you confined them to particular issues, commented them, and backed up your doing so with explanations here.
• "Philosophy" is highly relevant to this article on "life," and in fact there is some draft material hidden at the end of the article lede section (view through edit mode), which you might want to look at.
• Well, if you're interested in "circular" reasoning, you can read the above talk sections regarding the previous incarnation. Indeed, we have some issues with regard to how to define "life."
• Even your definition: "Life is a characteristic of living things" is quite circular.
• I thought that abstracting the term to the level of concept would work, but did not phrase it correctly (as you pointed out "life is not a concept"). Something like "Life is a word that represents a concept of animate things.." etc. would be more accurate and more offensive to the counter-conceptual, who like 'symbol is-a definition' relationships, and not more accurate language substrate/logic tokens like "concept," "refers to," "indicates," "connotes," "infers," etc.
• "certain key functions" is likewise problematic and counters the conceptuality required at this level. Indeed, using something like "self-sustaining function" (my language) might be problematic according to some definitions. The prion, notably. Which shows that even scientists cant always agree, and even while dealing exclusively in quantitative dimensions they will sometimes drift into qualitative territory.
• Using a term like "biological life" (to distinguish biological concept of life from other concepts) might be considered redundant.
• Note, I used "objects" too, but that inevitably will be challenged/changed/deleted.
• 'quantitative empirical characteristic' is my language, used to refer to something characteristic(-al) and not quite conceptual - hence separating a general/colloquial/conceptual understanding of "life" from a scientific one, which is not interested as much in qualitative distinctions as it is in the basic quantitative ones.
• "Does it mean that the characteristic of life can be measured quantitatively?" This notion is implicit in all scientific treatments, by definition, and applies from everything to medicine to Schroedinger's Cat.
• What does 'empirical' mean?" - "The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment" (source: Empirical article, Misplaced Pages, the 💕, ver. 287400321, lastedit. May 2, 2009). A bit redundant with "scientific," not always apparent in "biology," but then we could instead use "scientific study of life" instead of "biology," though this might be a bit too conceptual even for me. -Stevertigo 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: This is a draft of changed I saved earlier:

Life is a concept given to distinguish objects which have with self-sustaining "life" functions ("alive," "living"), from all other objects which can be classified as "inanimate" (never alive). A (former) life form in which life function has ceased is called "dead." "Life" and "death" are conceptually opposite states of being —in which "life" differs infinitely from inanimate matter, and in which "death" is equal to the inanimate state.

-Stevertigo 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pete's edit back to "Life is a characteristic that ...." I see Steve is drafting the inclusion of Life as a concept for disciplines other than biology, such as religion and philosophy, where the use of the word word 'concept' would be much more appropriate.

The expresion 'quantitative empirical characteristic' does not serve. It will be changed. BatteryIncluded (talk)

Peter has yet to respond, but my usage of "concept" serves to put the matter of "life" into conceptual/abstract form first, wherupon we can venture into particular theories - the scientific ones of course will remain prominent.

"Quantitative empirical characteristic" may be as good as we can get, unless you can think of a better one. How would you rather we describe the general scientific view of "life?" And, while we're at it, what do you think of employing the quantitative/qualitative distinction between scientific study of biological processes, and philosophical/everything_not-scientific inquiry into higher-level processes that are not quantifiable? -Stevertigo 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

- what do you think of employing the quantitative/qualitative distinction between scientific study of biological processes, and philosophical/everything_not-scientific inquiry into higher-level processes that are not quantifiable? -SV

Descriptions and definitions of life are as varied as life itself. For sake of brevity and readability, one correct biological description is enough. From the biology point of view, the present description is quite functional and needs little change if any.

The process of describing the insubstantial or unquantifiable nature of life is certainly different from a scientific vs. a philosophical or religious understanding, and it may be an asset to this article. Because of often vandalism from some creationists, I once opened the dialog/consensus about including religious/philosophical descriptions of life - and there was no support for it, so the focus remained from the biology perspective and evidence based. I still support somewhat to expand the notion of the nature of life from other mainstream inquiring disciplines. It must be done not in oposition to evidence-based disciplines such as science but as complementary information. However, it must be done in a suficiently general manner so that its introduction does not eventually grow into a list of every particular religious group's perception of their own conceptual descriptions and their unique faith-based technicalities. A proven difficult task to moderate and contain in this high profile article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• BI wrote: "Descriptions and definitions of life are as varied as life itself." - This may be true in science, literature, and philosophy, but it cannot possibly be true on Misplaced Pages, after all, there is only one English language Misplaced Pages article on "life," not counting simple:Life. Thus there can be only one description, not counting revision changes. Thus we together work on such a description, which largely involves outlining a cloud of relevant concepts, sorting that cloud for order of precedence, and writing the most terse yet expressive expressions the local collective mind possibly can agree on. This 'agreement' is not a bad thing and does not make a wikiality. It just means that people work together on an expression (article) that handles all the variance in an ordered way. -SV
• "For sake of brevity and readability, one correct biological description is enough." - Maybe. As opposed to two correct ones? Or one correct, one not? Or two not? Those appear to be the options. In the context of biology, the debate about whether the concept of "non-cellular life" is or is not an oxymoron is interesting, and should be touched on a little bit. I did so in a parenthetical, but a little more about how even at the lower end of the scale (cells -> humans) qualitative concepts present an issue. -SV
• "From the biology point of view, the present description is quite functional and needs little change if any." - Great. -SV
• "The process of describing the insubstantial or unquantifiable nature of life is certainly different from a scientific vs. a philosophical or religious understanding, and it may be an asset to this article." - Great. I think we can try to be a bit categorical about that too. -SV
• "Because of often vandalism from some creationists, I once opened the dialog/consensus about including religious/philosophical descriptions of life - and there was no support for it, so the focus remained from the biology perspective and evidence based." - Creationists, and I am one of a sort, need to be respected in this view; not such that their view dominates the article, but that their concepts are 1) understood well enough by "us non-creationists" such that we can reinterpret their concepts into English, and 2) that they are linked to the appropriate concepts. My terse references to "philosophy and religion," ethics, sentience, and sanctity of life cover about all I can think of except maybe religious views on life (if there is one.. apparently not..) or religious views on human life (not there either), and sending creationists to such an article might not be a bad idea. -SV
• "I still support somewhat to expand the notion of the nature of life from other mainstream inquiring disciplines." - Great. -SV
• "It must be done not in oposition to evidence-based disciplines such as science but as complementary information." - True, though I must state that by "oppositon" I understand you to mean "no anti-science polemic," which would fall under WP:NOR and WP:POINT. In reality, religious views and science views can often contradict each other - particularly when science and science-based views get into making qualitative statements, rather than sticking to quantitative ones. Contradicting each other does not mean dis-including the non-scientific one, it just means we describe it in NPOV terms and give sufficient linkage and context to the relevant articles. -SV
• "However, it must be done in a suficiently general manner so that its introduction does not eventually grow into a list of every particular religious group's perception of their own conceptual descriptions and their unique faith-based technicalities." - I agree. Its not easy, but I think the hidden draft I wrote is on the way to dealing with all of that sufficiently, yet in one straightforward paragraph that will link people outward toward the qualitative concepts. -SV
• "A proven difficult task to moderate and contain in this high profile article." - I agree. That is why I focus on ledes, or at least its one of the reasons. But even good ledes will get overwritten by someone (some scientist, for example) who comes along and says "that's all wrong," and "I can do better." Its often a rather good thing, but only if that person truly understands the concepts (not just a specialty within the general concept) and can explain these in a general way, and link them (important!) to the relevant or related articles. - Stevertigo 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I was clear enough when I proposed to not present non-scientific disciplines' concept of life in oposition to science, but as additional information from other inquiring disciplines' perspective. For example: In biology, life is.... / In philosophy, life is.... For most religions, life is.... etc. Of course the reader will find contradictions from the different perspectives, if his intellect is working at all; the task for us would be to not compare them one against the other but simply mention the existence of some non-experimental disciplines that have made an attemp to describe life.

But even good ledes will get overwritten by someone (some scientist, for example) who comes along and says "that's all wrong,"

Stevie, Stevie. It does not take a doctor in biology to realize that your exciting new OR lead that went: "Life is a concept of all biological machines" is all wrong. Face it. Your garbage deserved that revert, and your new version has somewhat redeemed you.

"For sake of brevity and readability, one correct biological description is enough." -BI

Maybe. As opposed to two correct ones? Or one correct, one not? Or two not? Those appear to be the options.-SV

Steve, although you have confessed to operate as one, you don't HAVE TO be an A-hole. Or do you thive on Trolling for reactions? FOCUS! BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BI: "It does not take a doctor in biology to realize that your exciting new OR lead that went.. "Life is a concept of all biological machines" is all wrong." Face it. Your garbage deserved that revert, and your new version has somewhat redeemed you." - 1) The concept that the body is a machine is nothing I invented . 2) The concept that all that is you, the person, is within your "mind," is also nothing new. 3) The concept that what is you, the person, in the mind, is a particularly important dimension within the concept of "life," is also not my invention, and even when written amateurish and sourcelessly, is nothing that can be dismissed as "OR," by any learned person.

BI: "You don't HAVE TO be an A-hole... " - All true, mostly. But in my defense, I only called myself, never you, an "A-hole" (though I did suggest you consider taking part in the upcoming competitions). An important distinction, IMHO. Another distinction I make is that you revert-monkeyed me. I dare say it happens far too much, judging by the number of signs I see around. And to prove your competitive worth, you deleted my comments from this talk page... twice! (They were long-winded ones too). I trust you are now clear on the concepts, and regardless of how you feel about it, I will take some serious credit for your eternal future conformity with civility. .

BI écrit: "I was clear enough when I proposed to not present non-scientific disciplines' concept of life in oposition to science, but as additional information from other inquiring disciplines' perspective." Yes you were, and if I gave the impression that you were not understood, or that your emergent communion with reason was not appreciated, I apologise. Thank you. -Stevertigo 21:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For all your skills to use a dictionary, you have no knowledge of the subject. Living things are organisms; while "biological machine" is an analogy. I trust you are now clear on the concepts, and regardless of how you feel about it, I will take some serious credit for your eternal future conformity with WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I forgive you. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BI says: "I trust you are now clear on the concepts.. conformity with WP:NOR" - While I do disregard your inference that I "have no knowledge of the subject," I do not accept your sideways deflection of the term "biological machine" —not so much for the fact that I supplied you with a fancy link, but because I plan to use it here anyway in spite of your best objections. They just aren't very good, and I will explain:

BI says: "Living things are organisms" - Hm. I can say, without ego, that I can defeat this statement in seven different ways. I will give you one:

The etymology of "organism," the word you use so well, is.. Truth is I don't know yet.. looking it up now:

"wikt:en:organism" - no etymology given. Appears to be from the French "organisme":

"wikt:fr:organisme," - meaning (Google Translation): "built on word of "body" by adding the suffix-, to form a word meaning "a set of organs that can operate together."

It would appear, at a glance anyway, and using only that same "dictionary" you so disapprove of (and a WikiMedia one at that), that the etymology of "organism" is none other than "body+ism." That is "body" + "operation," "function," "system." It further appears the French the word "organism" is also used (at least in disambiguation) to represent other integral systems such as political or governmental varieties (fr:Organismes_vivants -> fr:Organisation).

Le interesting thing about this is that we do not do the same with the now-English word "organism," and this says quite a bit about the etymology. Languages often integrate foreign words for specialized usage —usage that itself has no other etymology, and therefore no etymological substance, other than what can be found in the original "body systeme."

To be civil I will grant you that "biological machine" is a kind of "metaphor." But this does not change the fact that even "organism" is metaphoric vis-a-vis its apparent French ancestor. And regardless, a great many words in any natural language are metaphoric (-al?) anyway. Hence "body system" is not much less of a metaphor than "biological machine" is, and the differences in fact make the latter term more clear: The word "biological" you might agree is a more exact term than "body." Likewise, in a certain *qualitative sense, "machine" is more exact than "system."

Though there is a certain character issue associated with doing so, you can still easily disregard what I've just clearly explained. Still I can deal with your dismissal of the term another way: We do sometimes in English usage use English-language descriptive terms instead of the French-derived word: "Body system" in that case would be a near-literal translation of "organisme." But "body system" is a bit too ambiguous isn't it? It just doesn't mean quite what "organism" does, even when neither of us (only just a minute or two ago) didn't even understand the actual etymology of "organism." I have not even gone back to the Latin (~organum < Ancient Greek ὄργανον "organon," “‘an instrument, implement, tool, also an organ of sense or apprehension, an organ of the body, also a musical instrument, an organ’” < *ἔργειν (ergein), “‘to work’”), and the truth is I didn't have a clue what I would find in searching for the etymology tonight.

Again, just for the queasy, this "biological machine" concept AIUI does not appear to claim that the human being "is a machine." Nor that the body is separate from the being. Rather it appears to suggest that the human *being is not 'the body,' and thus is an unfortunate and distinct contradiction to the *quantitative view, which anyway appears to sometimes make the mistake of asserting *qualitative claims that it has not even scientific basis for making. So the term in fact means what you think it does —that even while the body is a kind of "system" or "machine," the human being is not.

As you can see, I think I well-enough understand the 'scientific' dislike for the "biological machine" term and the concept it means. In conclusion, for such reasons as follows and precedes, and with sources even, the English term "biological machine" is not to be so easily dismissed:

1) even if it's as faithful to the French etymologie as can reasonably be expected in a near-literal translation

2) even if, like metaverse, asprin, radar, or prion, its called "a neologism"

3) even if the term is sourced to books and papers which you don't happen to like

4) and even if it happens to say something quite very interesting about "biology" itself.

For your consideration, -Stevertigo 07:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to see you are dropping the attitude, so I will reply in kind.

To be civil I will grant you that "biological machine" is a kind of "metaphor." --SV'

To be honest and accurate, I have no problem using this machine analogy/metaphor as such somewhere else in the article; my strong objection was its use in the first defining sentence of the article. But that has been addressed, and it is 'water under the bridge'. Overall, I am excited by the new editing activity happening lately and I would like to see this article grow well beyond the scientific perspective of life, so I look forward to read any new additions on the philosophical and religious views of life, and since those are not my fields of expertise, I will take a back seat while in there.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some other points

In philosophical or even religious discussions of life, life would not be a 'concept'. A concept is a psychological phenomenom, probably peculiar to human beings and the higher animals. But when life began on Earth, and there were only very primitive organisms, there were no concepts, there was still life. And as I remarked before, it is the expression 'the concept of Life' that refers to a concept. The word 'life' refers to something else.

Some suggestions for improving the article.

• A short section on the history of the concept of life might be useful. There were broadly two concepts in the ancient world.
  • The view of the materialists, according to which living things are more complex physical compounds than non-living ones, but do not differ in kind. This was held by Democritus, Leucippus, Empedocles and other ancient philosophers who thought that life is merely 'matter in motion'.
  • The Aristotelian view. Every thing has an essence or nature which defines what it is, and which is the cause of its existence. In the case of living things, this essence consists in having a purpose, directing the living thing towards a specific end. The most natural operation of a living being is to produce others like itself. In this, living things endure as if they were 'divine and everlasting', not numerically the same, but the same in species. (Reminiscent of Dawkins, no?).
• Aristotle's views were adopted by the Catholic church in the Scholastic era.
• In the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, mechanistic ideas were revived by philosophers like Descartes.
• Another view opposed to this was Vitalism, the belief that the life-principle is essentially immaterial. This originated with Stahl, and held sway until the middle of the nineteenth century. It appealed to philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey , anatomists like Bichat, and chemists like Liebig. (‘There is nothing to prevent us from considering the vital force as a peculiar property, which is possessed by certain material bodies, and becomes sensible when their elementary particles are combined in a certain arrangement or form’ (Liebig 1842 - Animal Chemistry or Organic Chemistry in its Application to Physiology and Pathology, trans. W. Gregory, Cambridge: John Owen. ).
• It might be worth putting something in about the teleological explanation of life. A teleological explanation accounts for phenomena in terms of their purpose or goal-directedness. Thus, the whiteness of the polar bear's coat is explained by its purpose of camouflage. The direction of causality is the other way round to materialistic science, which explain the consequence in terms of a prior cause. Most modern biologists (I believe) now reject this functional view in terms of a material and causal one: biological features are to be explained not by looking forward to future optimal results, but by looking backwards to the past evolutionary history of a species, which led to the natural selection of the features in question. .
• There should be more about the (supposed) characteristic features of life.
  • For example, the view that all living things have some complex internal organisation, composed of heterogeneous parts or 'organs'. One of my sources suggests that the word 'organ' gives its name to the distinction between 'organic' and 'inorganic', but I can't find any etymological dictionary to support this.
  • Shape: living organisms have, or tend towards, a determinate form or shape. Such determination is not found in any inorganic bodies except crystals.
• Interesting how many of the articles surrounding this subject are quite poor. For example, the article on Stahl has nothing about his vitalist views, even thought this appears to be fairly well known. The article on Teleology is also scrappy and poor. Vitalism has nothing about Stahl or Leibniz

Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick responses to Damian (its very late)

• PD: "In philosophical or even religious discussions of life, life would not be a 'concept'" - Words like "word" "idea," or "view" just don't work to indicate a conceptual unit. -SV
• PD: "A concept is a psychological phenomenom, probably peculiar to human beings and the higher animals" - Well, your concept of the concept called "concept" appears to be influenced by or else trying to be quantitative, and excluding the qualitative. It asserts or makes overtures toward a view that "a concept" is or should be here defined not in terms of psychology of mind or even cognitive science, but in terms of neurobiology and neurochemistry — which is just ridiculous, in addition to being counter-conceptual. -SV
• PD: "But when life began on Earth, and there were only very primitive organisms, there were no concepts, there was still life." - You dislike the usage of the word "concept", and perhaps its meaning as well, and yet your using concepts like.. "when" (concept of time), "life began" (concept of origination, seeding), "on Earth" (concept of place/boundary/context), "and" (concept of a grammatical and semantic continuation/connection by relevance), "only" (concept of exclusion), "very" (concept of weight/scale), "primitive organisms" (concept of ancestral biology).
• Continued... And that's not even dealing with the meaning implied in your concept (restating as understood): That there was "life" before there was human life, who could have a concept of "life." The only problem with this is that "life" did not exist before human beings created the concept: Organisms may have existed and these organisms may have had divergent but related or similar functions, but nevertheless these were not "life" — they simply were. Even if one considers the theistic point of view, that God saw these organisms and called them (in his own conceptual language) "life," it is still not our human definition (concept), as we have been developing it and continue to do so further. -SV
• Continued... Note that attaching "life" -> "organisms" is again a bit in the realm of steering the article into the quantitative realm. I have yet to pen the science dogma article, but that one certainly qualifies. The point is that we are human beings (most of us anyway), and we are dealing here with the English Misplaced Pages's treatment of "life." In an encyclopedic context, "life" is first and foremost a word, which is used in various ways and attached to various distinct concepts. Unlike a dictionary, these are not all defined in this article, but likewise nor do we reject all non-quantitative concepts of life, in trying to seek some inane notion of scientific purity, or worse the self-concept of philosophy that claims to follow scientific (or science-like) method, purpose, and relevance. -SV
• PD: "And as I remarked before, it is the expression 'the concept of Life' that refers to a concept. The word 'life' refers to something else." - You are forgetting context. In this context of an overview encyclopedia article, we start with the abstract and work ourselves into the details. Indeed, we may even want to treat this article as entirely conceptual and use "biological life," ignoring any concepts of intrinsic redundancy, as a sub-article to deal with biology's views. We do this all the time, and the result is an introductory article that treats everything in a fair amounts, not giving undue weight to one or the other. This of course may not be the preference of those who are pushing a quantitative POV of "life."
• PS: I note that you added some more text, and much of it looks substantive. I will respond tomorrow, at about 19 UTC. -SV
• PPS: Note at the top of this talk page: "Since When is Life a Taxonomic Supergroup?" A funny but accurate question directed at quantitative POV-pushers that claim "life == biology." Which is rather silly, actually. -Stevertigo 09:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry SV this is just rambling drivel. Please keep this sort of nonsense off the talk page. It is absurd to claim that life did not exist before the concept of life existed. I agree that the word 'life' did not exist (until very recently, being an English word derived from High German) before humans existed. But life existed before the word existed. Similarly, rocks existed before the word, or the concept 'rock' existed. Water existed before the concept of water existed. And so on. Indeed, probably many things that we don't know about, and have no concept of, exist. For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian wrote:

"Sorry... rambling drivel... nonsense... absurd ... existed... High German ... existed... existed.... rocks... Peloponnesian War... human knowledge... pissy ... Randy in Boise... sword-wielding skeletons... irate ... sword-skeleton theory ... passing judgment."

Am I to understand now.. that you.. are calling my expressions.. "rambling drivel?" Even at two in the morning —and I admit I'm not yet certain I still mean everything I wrote above last night —I can still tell you there's more actual substance in one of my nonces than in your entire statement above: Allusions to Randy, skeletons, and your irateness notwithstanding. -Stevertigo 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: The point is, getting back to the substance, that even though "life" existed before humans, "life", and in fact everything you know is in your own mind. Same here, actually. Thus, putting aside for a moment Light, Love, and True Being, all we can do is work in the realm of concepts anyway. Kthxbye -Stevertigo 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be so, but Misplaced Pages reflects scientific and academic consensus, and the consensus view is that not everything we know is in our own mind. Moreover, if your view were correct, rocks would only exist in our mind, and the article on rocks would have to begin not with 'Rock is a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids' but 'Rock is the concept of a naturally occurring solid aggregate of minerals and/or mineraloids'. To be consistent, we must deal with things in Misplaced Pages as if they were, in fact, mind-independent. This make things much more simple, don't you agree? Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not say, nor am I promoting that we make "everything is in our own mind" the standard view, such that "rock is a concept," (in fact "rock" is an English word.. just kidding). Some of this deals a bit with Chomsky's point about "H2O is something like water" (or "nothing like water" depending on the context and his understanding of the question), but it is not exactly "water." Neither is "river" made of "water," exactly, and most especially if it's one of these rivers.

So, I do appreciate your point and I agree with it. Usually. What I am saying is that in certain cases we have to do things a little different (-ly?). Major high-level conceptual articles are often such a case. And, in fact if we follow your above stated approach, in my experience (with philosophy articles in particular), it usually only produces an encyclopedic muck, wherein people wind up bickering and disagreeing so much about how to deal with the subject in a *quantitative way, that it winds up not saying much at all about what the concept actually *means. And worse, it says nothing at all period. Articles that start with "there is no agreed-upon definition" are of not worth.

This means getting a little bit into qualitative territory, even when the experts may be under the impression that there is something quantitative there, even while they don't understand where such might be found. "Being" is such an article (and I just made up my mind to deal with that one in the near future).

Note, you said something quite interesting: "I am surprised that there is no mention of DNA anywhere in the article," which raises the real issue (from a work-in-progress standpoint) that we think about all things that fall within the concept of "life" and list them. We then build a cloud, and make the article conform to that cloud. IMHO.

Because "knowledge" itself is conceptual, we can be a bit conceptual (and the new lede sentence reflects this) about dealing with this concept article.. article topic.. topic concept. I only suggest this because "life" is a term used in a number of different ways, and even when confined to the concept of organisms and the scientific study thereof, there is some serious variance about the concept's true quantifiability - (again) particularly when we get into the "unquantifiables" like intelligent life, sentient life, sapience, meaning of life, sanctity of life, etc. IMHO (CMIIR) the way to deal with variance is usually just to take a step back, and when we do so, we get into philosophical territory, some of which you appear to be quite familiar with. IMHO.

You: "Isn't this the fundamental explanation of what Aristotle noticed about living things, namely that they grow into a determinate form, and that although individual organisms of a species die, the species 'tries' to perpetuate itself. 'Many in number, one in species, as though a single thing'?" - You are getting into very wonderful territory, making a connection of something like determinate form -> evolution (subtly of course, and sourced if possible). While some may call even the suggestion of such hyper-connectivity "original research," I would simply call it, if the inference is as obvious as you make it, "collaborative insight and brilliance." And now I have to go wash the dishes. -Stevertigo 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

New section

I have added (against my better judgment) a substantial section on the history of ideas about life. I hope it is useful. There is a good article in the SEP that may also be useful. This suggests the debate about vitalism lingered well into the 20C. Section 4 is particularly interesting. I am surprised that there is no mention of DNA anywhere in the article. Isn't this the fundamental explanation of what Aristotle noticed about living things, namely that they grow into a determinate form, and that although individual organisms of a species die, the species 'tries' to perpetuate itself. 'Many in number, one in species, as though a single thing'? Peter Damian (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! You must put aside your better judgment more often. -Stevertigo 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, new response to BI at #Lede_section (bottom "BI: "I trust you are now clear on.."). -Stevertigo 07:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting addition, Peter. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

References' format

I noticed today that the 'References' section no longer displays their corresponding number. There seems to be an issue with the reference format and I could not find it. Please take a look. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was the use of "#" within the reference #2 text. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Life is a..

Life is.. (fill them in as needed)

• a "characteristic:" "from the Greek word "χαρακτηριστικό" for a property or attribute (= trait) of an entity) has several particular meanings"
  • a distinguishable feature of a person or thing

Synonyms:

• attribute, property, idiosyncrasy, mannerism, quality, tendency, trademark, trait

I don't think life is as much a "characteristic," as it is the most important fundamental distinction in all of the universe (or "creation" as the belief-ies say). Boo if you want, but I think "characteristic" is an inadequate term, considering the above, and more importantly because anything in all conception (wherever that resides) deals with whether something is alive or not, or else whether something is heading that way or not. Srsly. -Stevertigo 07:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. There are at least two editor here that believe that 'characteristic' is the best word to use in the opening sentence. Lets work it out further. It is required to know the characteristics of objects in order to determine their "distintions", as you say. Each inquiring discipline has its own idea of what may be "the fundamental distinction in all the universe", and life may or may not be that distinction, so I won't go there from that angle.

Living organisms are more than an abstract concept; they are quite physical and display specific measurable characteristics and therefore, citing 'characteristics', reduces the ambiguety or error by interpretation. It is evident that science, philosophy and religion have their own idea and unique basic premises on how to define or interpret life. That is why I long proposed to make at least three separate entries - more or less like:

• In science/biology, life is defined as a characteristic...
• In philosophy, life is defined as a concept...
• In religion, life is defined as...

Such rather needed approach, opens the possibility of using accurate descriptions by each of these three different disciplines without a self-imposed restriction to attempt a one-fits-all description that does not serve them well and will likely be ambiguous to the readers.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points.

1. "There are at least two editor here that believe that 'characteristic' is the best word to use in the opening sentence." - I'm not certain that is what Peter "believe," or that others might think likewise. -SV
2. "It is required to know the characteristics of objects in order to determine their "distintions", as you say." - This is circular, if you use "distinctions" to mean "characteristics." I did not actually use "distinctions" in that way to refer to particular objects, rather I use(d) it to indicate a distinction among all objects. I don't think that science is particularly confined to make only objective observations, as it often seems to make larger conjectures based on small observations, but if you think that confining the scientific view of life to this aspect, such as you appear to suggest with your triune approach (science, philosophy, religion - I would rather put philosophy first, actually), I agree that such approach will be fruitful. -SV

1. "Each inquiring discipline has its own idea of what may be "the fundamental distinction in all the universe", and life may or may not be that distinction, so I won't go there from that angle." - Well, we can go there, and in fact I can handle that kind of approach. If you don't feel up to it, you can stick to your speciality, and jump over into the other realms when you feel there is a aspect I or others may miss. Essentially the fact is that every editor and reader of this article is a human being (discounting God), and therefore the concepts start from a similar point, even if they diverge into specialized systems of conceptualization. Yours happens to be the scientific one, which looks at small things and tries to build a picture of the all —good science doesn't go out of it way to step on theo/philosophical toes. -SV

1. "Living organisms are more than an abstract concept; they are quite physical and display specific measurable characteristics and therefore, citing 'characteristics', reduces the ambiguety or error by interpretation." - Well, that's the scientist talking. According to the scientific view, all of who we are is biological and therefore explainable by evolution. Though there is a wonderful and humble way of scientific being in that it just dealing with small things, there are other views, which though some can be quite nutty, do venture into a larger picture —one that can be quite devoid of agnosticism. -SV

1. "It is evident that science, philosophy and religion have their own idea and unique basic premises on how to define or interpret life. That is why I long proposed to make at least three separate entries - more or less like" - I agree, without qualification, except to state that the scientific view of life must be confined to biology, and that its overreaching conjectures be defined and described. -SV

1. "Such rather needed approach, opens the possibility of using accurate descriptions by each of these three different disciplines without a self-imposed restriction to attempt a one-fits-all description that does not serve them well and will likely be ambiguous to the readers." - Agreed, with the stipulation that the "one-fits-all" be understood as the logical approach you have outlined, and defer to the needs of common understanding to fulfil a basic overview of the semantics. We start from the human point of view:

The word life represents a concept of all objects that have properties of sustained function and temporal continuity, such as to distinguish these from all other things in existence. This distinction provides a basis for a fundamental existential contrast between living being ("life") and death. In the science of biology, life is defined as a characteristic of objects that have certain distinguishable self-sustaining properties, such that build upon synergistic chemistries and other complex natural interactions. In religion, "life" is a theological distinction such that regards human beings as having both a divine origin and an eternal sacred value. Regards, -Stevertigo 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with with your points and I see no compelling reason to place the scientific explanations before the philosophical ones. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New changes

I've made some changes to the lede's religion and science paragraphs, per our discussions above. I had also sought to make certain changes to the lede paragraph, ignoring the usage of "characteristic" (for now, and maybe for all time), and instead trying to deal with abstracting the lede sentences from the domain of science. A bit over a week ago (above) I came up with the expression "life is a of all objects that have properties of sustained function and temporal continuity," and I thought I would incorporate it into the lede.

This form I realized today was also problematic, because its usage of "function" and "continuity" were too open such that the statement could just as easily be referring to a star or a black hole, as it could to a life form. The problem isn't that it's vague —in fact its no more so than "biological organism" is redundant and inaccurate insufficient —rather that it lacks an indication of the sophisticated properties and properties of sophistication that we associate with life. This means the lede will have to move in the direction of something like the following:

..objects that possess complex and synergistic functions and processes that are founded upon a rare combination of physical phenomenae —such that its continued functions are dependent upon physical sustenance from its environment, and its behaviours are controlled through signals —either from the environment or through autonomous processes for signalling and abstract (signal) computation ("brain").

My reasons for dealing with the topic are not simple. "Life" is a broad concept such that at its boundaries are two notably controversial concepts of "life:"

1. Prion - an organism so utterly simple that it defies categorization.
2. God - a being so utterly complex that He defies conceptualization.

Another item, which, depending on the point of view, presents either a contradiction, a paradox, or a truth:

1. A human body (brain) without a mind is not a human being.
2. A human mind without a human body (brain) is (still) a human being, albeit not 'in (a normal state of) human being.'

At the center of this conceptual paradox are two paradoxes: the way in which the dominant religious views assert science's irrelevance to matters of significance without scientific proof, and how the scientific view expresses both a concept of self-limitation (quantitativeness) and a dominance over reality. When we deal with the concept of being, we deal with philosophical views that get into the qualitative territory of the mind, such that regard the mind as the "life form" and the body simply as the (biological) "machine." The path to this qualitative distinction is not clear nor easy to deal with, notably because its based somewhat on quantitative distinctions made through concepts like intelligence, sentience, sapience, and emotion.

Thus "living" things are said to have properties of function and temporality that exceed mere material objects, and various human concepts define "life" further such that certain quantitative and qualitative distinctions between different "life forms" are made.

My thoughts, for your consideration. -Stevertigo 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Breakdown:

• complex and synergistic functions and processes
• founded upon a rare combination of physical phenomenae
• continued functions are dependent upon physical sustenance from its environment
• and its behaviours are controlled through signals
• either from the environment or through autonomous processes for signalling and abstract (signal) computation ("brain").

This mention of "behaviours" is premature, and though its a fundamental aspect, it merely indicates something important from a wrong angle of approach, rather than dealing with the concept of signal → response in a more tactile way. I'm working on a different variant that deals with that problem, but that means going back to the cloud. -Stevertigo 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some quick observations:

• Prions are not organisms but proteins (chains of aminoacids). There is absolutely no controversy today about that, as you falsely claim.
• Any attempt to introduce "mind" talk, would be limited to the human experience, and that would not help describe life in general - the subject of this article.
• The key word that helps explain the nature of biological processes is not "behavior" but physiology.
• Is it too difficult for you to research published expert publications? You keep on elaborating on a new home-made (Original Research) definition that just won't stick. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you could chime in:

• BI: "Prions are not organisms" - Ah. Mistated. Utterly. I meant "virii" —ie. "organisms at the edge of life". I also was not up-to-speed with regard to the apparently recent "replicator" term, which seems to be quite useful. I suppose the terse mention of prion at the non-cellular life stub is not justified, then?
• BI please, it's not "mind talk" —its "mind" (though "brain" tends to be the typical metonym). That said, I agree that its premature to get into "mind" in the first paragraph, and certainly the real issue behind "mind" anyway is simply signal → response, which as I noted above should be first dealt with in the chemistry (external signals) sense, before getting into the mind (internal signals) sense. Am I correct in supposing that 'biochemical signal → response' is important here, and is something that you can quite well deal with directly?
• BI: "Physiology" - Argh. Point well taken. Hm. For your consideration: Strip away any dogmatic implication of the form physiology → bio-organism and you've got a seriously abstract concept that has broad applicability. Its practically perfect anyway, though.
• BI: "Is it too difficult for you to research published expert publications?" Aside from this being off-topic, the answer is "yes." They require serious prerequisite knowledge that I don't have, tend to focus on specialized details rather than general concepts, and want to charge this great information to my lackluster credit card. None of which particularly interests me, nor, coincidentally, is it really relevant to dealing with the introduction to an article about a concept that vastly exceeds science anyway.
• BI: "You keep on elaborating on a new home-made (Original Research) definition that just won't stick." - BI please, its not "home-made" —its "conceptual" (cf. WP:CONCEPT). (I do often edit from "home," by the way). And when we consult each other to form an arrangement of concepts we decide are fundamental to a topic, we are creating a "concept cloud" (WP:CLOUD). The conceptual approach has thus far served us quite well on this talk page, has it not? -Stevertigo 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Svertigo, stop crying me a river about sources and about Binksternet. You and I have no "conversation" any more that I have a conversation with a bothersome and mindless fly. You keep posting your long-winded Original Research assays instead of sourcing the information you attempt to introduce to the article - a Misplaced Pages requirement you refuse to acknowledge and comply with. Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, so, for n time:

No drama is required, only information from reputable sources.

Since you seem to indulge in 'selective attention', try this one too:

Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

If you have original research or commentary to contribute to a subject, there are numerous other places to do so, such as at WikiInfo. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"stop crying me a river about sources and about Binksternet." - I wasn't crying anything. I was telling you to stay on topic, and don't let a Bink sucker you in to acting like an DBAD violator again. If you can remember only a few short weeks ago, you made several arguments on this talk page - several of which I demonstrated were false, and one or two of them was just with the usage of a dictionary. By defeating your ill concepts, I made it clear to you that your only future course was to act like a human being, and it is in that context that we have made progress.

Binksternet is learning the same thing - at Talk:American Dream Bink claimed that my edits were innaccurate and unsubstantiated - I was able to use the very same sources he provided to demonstrate that I was correct. He was wise enough to not respond to those points, conceding them, instead choosing a modality of someone who uses his skills to find sources, rather than doing what he was doing before, which was simply destroying edits which he subjectively considers to be not up to a certain inequally applied standard.

I can either excuse the "bothersome and mindless fly" comment or else may you pay for it. You stated "You keep posting your long-winded Original Research assays instead of sourcing the information you attempt to introduce to the article." - The issue here is about getting back to discussing the article and what goes in it. I've helped contribute to making it into what it is today, which is much more high-level and transcendent of any dogmatic claims by biology over all of the "life" concept. We were visited by someone who was trolling, and its important to not mindlessly follow the mantras introduced by a troll in the way you just did.

You come now to a crossroads: Should I again regard you BI as just another hostile know-it-all professional that I have to take a few inches off of? Again. Or can we get back to discussing the article? -Stevertigo 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9811807