The question may seem trivial at first consideration, because we all have an instinctive recognition or recognition of being alive. However, this instinctive notion is largely unexamined, as a brief examination will show.
All biological systems are taken into formal scientific definition of "life" of a room "things." Buddhists, for example, consider unethical for humans to "kill" other living things for food. Plant life is so different from animal life can be morally and ethically justified in not counting the plants as living in our control ethical interpretation: "Thou shalt not kill"
The example of morality and ethics apparent contradiction illustrates why vegetarianism for an investigation into the notion of "life" is important because it transcends into account the distinction between plant and animal life. Certain types of lower animal life so different from human life that can "kill" without actually having "killed?" If some lower forms of life are not really alive, then where do we draw the line in the Linnaean hierarchy of animal life from the moral law and ethics: "Thou shalt not kill" at what level of the Linnaean hierarchy makes an animal become so alive that we become connected for the first time by the commandment not to kill when? Nature, of course, makes no attempt to help us draw a line between "alive" and "is not really living" in the Linnaean hierarchy of life. All animals are equipped with an instinctive desire to fight for the . Darwinian evolution of survival "life" is our instinctive response to this question But again, we come to the question -. this is the life what "life" is of? such value to force the fight for its perpetuation?
The standard approach to the definition of life, in the life sciences, it would seem, the spiritual superficiality. The lifetime is defined in terms of the main functions of biological systems. Leading the life defining list of biological functions is the power of reproduction or simply the power of a biological system to reproduce their original order. But to define life in terms of their self-replication functions commit a vicious circle seems to define when life becomes that reproduces life.
Some biologists argue (reasonably) to reject the concept of life as incompatible, and that we should seek, instead, to characterize biological systems, without any reference to the notion of "incoherent" of life. In this approach, we describe and study the biological systems that do and avoid obscuring the mystical air biology is "life." This observation led to the suggestion that our notion of "life" could very well be another in our long list of popular misconceptions, therefore poses theoretical problems, as what is, for example, the essential difference between a program fully automated intelligence, apache helicopter artificial self-replication and conducted a dragonfly, making it the first and second non-biological organic. Of course, thinking about the distinction between artificial intelligence machine of the helicopter and a dragonfly fully in terms of difference in engineering (organic vs inorganic) is so shallow that in the context of the idea that concept of life being thrown into scientific thought the empty real value to maintain the distinction between categories of biological and nonbiological becomes.
It is the concept of "life", after all, a meaningless concept? To examine this question, we can ask ourselves why the systems described as biological fight for survival? What is the intrinsic value of biological systems in order to force the recall of a highly developed and sophisticated paraphernalia in promoting its perpetuation? The fact that we found these sophisticated mechanisms in biological systems raises important questions about the nature of "life."
A useful approach to the problem of "life" is in terms of what can be observed that the incompleteness of biological systems with regard to the question: why biological systems are struggling to survive? If you know the fighters are fully automated you assume that the duel is a human struggle by proxy jetfighter machine! Why? The answer is that, regarding the motivation to fight and fight, fighter planes are incomplete. In the same vein, it could be suggested that in the struggle to survive, biological systems such as organics machines are incomplete. Dawkins selfish genes do not explain the problem either, because although the DNA molecule obeys the laws of chemistry in their functions, we know the laws of chemistry that bind DNA to behave as he does ( illustrative, not disobey the laws of physics when we build and fly spacecraft on the moon, but the laws of physics do not explain how or why we built spaceshuttles and take them to the moon). To try to answer the question, "why dragonflies struggle for survival and seeking companions for sexual reproduction?" Saying they only seek to perpetuate their genes to provide an incomplete answer, because we know that information systems lack the inherent ability to self-replicating or self-sustaining, a database manager that values information should take the initiative.
0 komentar