3 ms·

'The Extended Organism' by J Scott Turner I've posted this repeatedly to these lists, but no one else is as enthused by it. From the GoodReads page: "Can the

'The Extended Organism' by J Scott Turner I've posted this repeatedly to these lists, but no one else is as enthused by it. From the GoodReads page: "Can the structures that animals build--from the humble burrows of earthworms to towering termite mounds to the Great Barrier Reef--be said to live? However counterintuitive the idea might first seem, physiological ecologist Scott Turner demonstrates in this book that many animals construct and use structures to harness and control the flow of energy from their environment to their own advantage."

crimsonalucard 7y ago
I can see how this idea may seem novel to people who never thought about it on their own or seen it in many other places, but the isomorphism between carbon based life and its higher level ecosystem is not new. It also blurs the line between life and systems that aren't alive... but you have to realize that "life" is just a loaded word that mostly describes carbon based nano-machines. The vagueness of the word "life" produces an illusion of the concept being "interesting" when it is actually we ourselves who made up the word. I can make up any arbitrary word and give it a vague definition but that only makes the word itself interesting not the concepts it describes. Yes there is a blurriness and conceptual interest between "life" and the "ecosystems" that surrounds it, but this is only a property of the word "life" not of the systems themselves which is basically just little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures. The highest level stuff I've seen about this topic is the Gaia hypothesis. The creators of this theory managed to make it align with actual scientific theories but I think the very creation of this theory was caused by the same psychological trip up I described above. Yes life and ecosystem share an interesting isomorphism but again I repeat that the interesting part is really just a "linguistic" phenomenon.
- derangedHorse 7y ago
  "The vagueness of the word "life" produces an illusion of the concept being "interesting" when it is actually we ourselves who made up the word." We make up all words and yet don't seem to find every word interesting. "which is basically just little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures." I'm sure a lot of us would disagree with you downplaying how interesting most people find that topic. A lot . of things can pretty much be described as "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures". If someone were to ask me "What's a computer?" I could technically respond with "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures" lol
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    >We make up all words and yet don't seem to find every word interesting. This is because many words are made up with a concrete meaning. Many made up words with vague meanings inject a sort of false interest into things. "Spirituality" for example. >If someone were to ask me "What's a computer?" I could technically respond with "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures" lol I am not downplaying interest in the study of biology. I am downplaying the fact that you can call an ant colony or the planet earth a living organism. There is no real interest here as it is just a word. The main difference between a computer and "life" is self replication and natural selection. The added feature of evolution and self replication promotes additional interest and it is not because of vague wording. The delineation between a computer and "life" is utterly clear in this case. Where it may become unclear is if one day we create machines that self replicate. This may promote philosophical questions like "What is life?" My point is that, the philosophical question is just contemplating a linguistic phenomenon and is a pointless and delusional endeavor.
schoen 7y ago
A different recent take on "where is X really located?" is The Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich, which argues that our useful intelligence is largely in our culture and our capacity to build it incrementally, rather than in our individual minds' capacities. He starts off with observations about well-educated, intelligent, capable people in possession of sophisticated technology starving or freezing to death when they were stranded in unfamiliar physical environments, in which other cultural groups could thrive. If Turner thinks that your constructed habitat is part of your body, Henrich thinks that your culture is part of your intelligence, and for a wide range of purposes, the most important part.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

I can see how this idea may seem novel to people who never thought about it on their own or seen it in many other places, but the isomorphism between carbon based life and its higher level ecosystem is not new. It also blurs the line between life and systems that aren't alive... but you have to realize that "life" is just a loaded word that mostly describes carbon based nano-machines. The vagueness of the word "life" produces an illusion of the concept being "interesting" when it is actually we ourselves who made up the word. I can make up any arbitrary word and give it a vague definition but that only makes the word itself interesting not the concepts it describes. Yes there is a blurriness and conceptual interest between "life" and the "ecosystems" that surrounds it, but this is only a property of the word "life" not of the systems themselves which is basically just little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures. The highest level stuff I've seen about this topic is the Gaia hypothesis. The creators of this theory managed to make it align with actual scientific theories but I think the very creation of this theory was caused by the same psychological trip up I described above. Yes life and ecosystem share an interesting isomorphism but again I repeat that the interesting part is really just a "linguistic" phenomenon.

derangedHorse 7y ago
"The vagueness of the word "life" produces an illusion of the concept being "interesting" when it is actually we ourselves who made up the word." We make up all words and yet don't seem to find every word interesting. "which is basically just little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures." I'm sure a lot of us would disagree with you downplaying how interesting most people find that topic. A lot . of things can pretty much be described as "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures". If someone were to ask me "What's a computer?" I could technically respond with "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures" lol
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >We make up all words and yet don't seem to find every word interesting. This is because many words are made up with a concrete meaning. Many made up words with vague meanings inject a sort of false interest into things. "Spirituality" for example. >If someone were to ask me "What's a computer?" I could technically respond with "little nano machines increasingly interacting with each other to form larger macro structures" lol I am not downplaying interest in the study of biology. I am downplaying the fact that you can call an ant colony or the planet earth a living organism. There is no real interest here as it is just a word. The main difference between a computer and "life" is self replication and natural selection. The added feature of evolution and self replication promotes additional interest and it is not because of vague wording. The delineation between a computer and "life" is utterly clear in this case. Where it may become unclear is if one day we create machines that self replicate. This may promote philosophical questions like "What is life?" My point is that, the philosophical question is just contemplating a linguistic phenomenon and is a pointless and delusional endeavor.

schoen 7y ago

A different recent take on "where is X really located?" is The Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich, which argues that our useful intelligence is largely in our culture and our capacity to build it incrementally, rather than in our individual minds' capacities. He starts off with observations about well-educated, intelligent, capable people in possession of sophisticated technology starving or freezing to death when they were stranded in unfamiliar physical environments, in which other cultural groups could thrive. If Turner thinks that your constructed habitat is part of your body, Henrich thinks that your culture is part of your intelligence, and for a wide range of purposes, the most important part.