Are human a biological
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-09-2014, 06:11 AM
Are human a biological
Kinda like plants. They eat and grow. The only difference is that humans just as animals have bodies, which is to protect cells in the bodies from viruses and bacteria etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 06:11 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  Kinda like plants. They eat and grow. The only difference is that humans just as animals have bodies, which is to protect cells in the bodies from viruses and bacteria etc.

Sorry, your post makes very little sense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
14-09-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 06:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 06:11 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  Kinda like plants. They eat and grow. The only difference is that humans just as animals have bodies, which is to protect cells in the bodies from viruses and bacteria etc.

Sorry, your post makes very little sense.

Just read "Richard Dawkins" The Selfish Gene. And got this idea of cells needing a body to protect itself. So since it nourishes products of nature and even meat, can we call ourself biological stuff from nature. That our bodies nourishes like a biological plant.

For example Robots are not biological, if i were to compare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 06:47 AM
RE: Are human a biological
...How old are you?

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like One Above All's post
14-09-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 06:43 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 06:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, your post makes very little sense.

Just read "Richard Dawkins" The Selfish Gene. And got this idea of cells needing a body to protect itself. So since it nourishes products of nature and even meat, can we call ourself biological stuff from nature. That our bodies nourishes like a biological plant.

For example Robots are not biological, if i were to compare.

You didn't understand what Dawkins said. I suggest you re-read the book.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 06:43 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  can we call ourself biological stuff from nature. That our bodies nourishes like a biological plant.

Humans are biological. Humans ARE animals and, if you go back far enough, animals are related to plants.

Quote:Just read "Richard Dawkins" The Selfish Gene. And got this idea of cells needing a body to protect itself.
I think you mean that the genes needed a body to protect them; the cells ARE the body and the cells contain the genes. Dawkins' 'selfish gene' model is an interesting way of thinking about how and why evolution occurs but it's not like the genes are intentionally designing better fortresses for themselves.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
14-09-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 07:08 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 06:43 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  can we call ourself biological stuff from nature. That our bodies nourishes like a biological plant.

Humans are biological. Humans ARE animals and, if you go back far enough, animals are related to plants.

Quote:Just read "Richard Dawkins" The Selfish Gene. And got this idea of cells needing a body to protect itself.
I think you mean that the genes needed a body to protect them; the cells ARE the body and the cells contain the genes. Dawkins' 'selfish gene' model is an interesting way of thinking about how and why evolution occurs but it's not like the genes are intentionally designing better fortresses for themselves.

Well thats what i was meaning the whole time.

Yes indeed. It was really interesting how he explained in a logical way that its obvious for cell to need a body to protect itself from stuff that exist out there. So we are like a genetical robot of reproduction.

Thx for the explanation. Maybe i just am bad at explaining stuff generally Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Are human a biological
Humans are biological. When we talk about life and biology we do so from a human-centric perspective. Whatever is most like us we are most prepared to think of as alive and biological. Whatever is least like us we are least prepared to think of in those terms. Practically the lines between what is alive or biological and what is inanimate are not so straightforward to draw.

I'm not sure it makes sense to say that we are a genetic robot of reproduction, but cells surely are. A cell is a protein factory that works from a blueprint in the form of our DNA. The nature of cells as factories allows viruses to exist by tampering with the machinery and feeding it viral instructions in the form of viral RNA or retroviral DNA.

Nature favours survival, and one effective strategy for cell survival has been to form large colonies. Organisms such as ourselves are a class of colony where the cells we are made of have succeeded by forming extensive interwoven ecosystems within each individual. Moreover the common DNA shared by the cells within these large colonies provides an evolutionary basis for cells to work together for the betterment of the colony over their own individual interests. Rogue colonies do break out however and we call these rogue colonies that work against the interests of the organism as a whole "cancer".

So I think it makes sense to talk about cells in mechanical terms. They are factories working to the instructions they are given. Evolution has shaped those instruction sets to support large cell colonies, and organisms such as ourselves in particular. The cells on the whole work towards the benefit of the whole colony due the evolutionary pressures to do so when the cells all share the same genetic code. We emerge out of this process, not as individuals but as each one a collective and each one a system made of parts.

Does any of this affect what we call "biological" or "alive", or does it affect the judgement we might pass on "mere machines" or "robots"? These terms are loaded with value judgements, so one cannot say whether any of these terms fit or do not fit without properly understanding what value judgements you mean to draw from the terms. We are what we are. What values we draw from what we are are is completely different question.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
14-09-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Are human a biological
(14-09-2014 07:23 AM)ZeroX3 Wrote:  ... obvious for cell to need a body to protect itself ...

The cells don't need a body, the cells ARE the body.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: Are human a biological
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: