UnderConstruction wrote:
Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action?

No.
Not unless you consider the workings of an enzyme in a cell to be 'deliberate'. If you do, then please define 'deliberate'.

rainbow wrote:

First of all, what do you define as "artificial"?

Usually this is defined as man-made, but you're free to extend this to the actions of other intelligences if you wish. Please define 'intelligence', if you wish to have us include it in the definition.

Oh, no you don't. Are you including other forms of intelligence?

Furthermore, if you are willing to allow others to do so, would you accept a beaver damn as "artificial"? How about a bird's nest?

Man made then? Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Also, does such a "directed" reaction detract from the possibility that it might occur under natural circumstances? If man sets fire to wood, are the resulting chemical reactions directed or undirected? If we chuck some stomach acid and bacteria in a test tube, then toss in a bit of food, are we looking at a directed or undirected reaction? Do either of these detract from the naturally occurring equivalent?

Furthermore, how do you justify the inclusion of enzymes, that may be completely naturally occurring, in the same category as blatantly deliberate actions of intelligent beings?

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Please do so then. We can then hammer it out between us, and agree what the remit of that description is.

Righty-Ho!
A directed reaction is one that is controlled through enzymes within a living system, or by artificial intervention.

Now that strikes me as just a little vague and ambiguous. First of all, what do you define as "artificial"? Can something non-intelligent cause this "artificial" intervention or are you just trying to avoid using the word "intelligent"?

Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action? If so, unless you are pushing for intelligent intervention, does that not introduce needless baggage and ambiguity into the discussion?

Wow, I just had crazy deja vu just then.

Oh wait, does it count as deja vu if the exact sequence of events actually does occur twice?... Hi again, Rainbow. Welcome to RationalSkepticism!

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action?

No.
Not unless you consider the workings of an enzyme in a cell to be 'deliberate'. If you do, then please define 'deliberate'.

But that means I must first of all accept your suggestion that enzymes "direct" chemical reactions. I think the less ambiguous, baggage laden term of "catalyse" is more fitting. If any of the professional chemists in the building want to tell me that the word "direct" is commonly used in this context, fair enough, but it still strikes me as inappropriate to mix this with intelligent intervention.

I can go digging through dictionaries if you wish but, in general usage, I would define "deliberate" as a conscious action of an intelligent being. I am sure more rigorous definitions are possible.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Wow, I just had crazy deja vu just then.

Yeah, we could probably just save time and copy and paste some threads from RDF.

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

First of all, what do you define as "artificial"?

Usually this is defined as man-made, but you're free to extend this to the actions of other intelligences if you wish. Please define 'intelligence', if you wish to have us include it in the definition.

Oh, no you don't. Are you including other forms of intelligence?

No, I didn't.
YOU did.
If you wish to make the case for other intelligences, that is up to you. Include beavers if you wish, but make sure you make a robust case for it. We don't suffer fools here you know?

UnderConstruction wrote:[ Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

Also, does such a "directed" reaction detract from the possibility that it might occur under natural circumstances?

No. Every reaction may occur without intervention, however other reactions will also take place simultaneously that are not desired to achieve the Purpose. By directing the reaction, only those reactions required for the Purpose take place.

If man sets fire to wood, are the resulting chemical reactions directed or undirected?

If the fire were to be used to boil water, then yes. The water would not have boiled otherwise, would it?

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

First of all, what do you define as "artificial"?

Usually this is defined as man-made, but you're free to extend this to the actions of other intelligences if you wish. Please define 'intelligence', if you wish to have us include it in the definition.

Oh, no you don't. Are you including other forms of intelligence?

No, I didn't.
YOU did.
If you wish to make the case for other intelligences, that is up to you. Include beavers if you wish, but make sure you make a robust case for it. We don't suffer fools here you know?

Actually, no.

My intention initially was to confirm that by "artificial" you meant intelligence of any kind. You are the one who brought other forms of intelligence into it. But then perhaps the question should be why other forms of intelligent life should be excluded. What makes the beaver damn different to a car, purely from the point of view of what is natural and what is artificial? Define your terms properly. Or are you deliberately trying to be vague to create wiggle room later?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

So are you going to drip feed us the definition then as we question it? In that case, if purpose is required, what is the "purpose" of an enzyme and the chemical reactions it catalises?

No. Every reaction may occur without intervention, however other reactions will also take place simultaneously that are not desired to achieve the Purpose. By directing the reaction, only those reactions required for the Purpose take place.

Then it sounds perfectly reasonable for this to be used for proof of concept, before other factors are reintroduced to better simulate how things might proceed without such careful setup.

How do enzymes fit into this again?

If the fire were to be used to boil water, then yes. The water would not have boiled otherwise, would it?

Purpose again then?

So the only purpose for burning wood is to boil water and water does not boil unless a person burns wood? Interesting.

In case you missed it, I was referring to chemical reactions such as the production of carbon dioxide. Whilst other things may result from the fire, they are by no means necessary or relevant to my question.

So once again, since you define "directed" as due to the involvement of enzymes and/or intelligence (you said "artificial" but you have made it clearer what you meant by this now), how do enzymes fit into this? How do enzymes display the sense of purpose that you use to distinguish other "directed" reactions from undirected? If they do not, why do they belong in the definition of "directed, along with intelligent intervention?

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Please do so then. We can then hammer it out between us, and agree what the remit of that description is.

Righty-Ho!
A directed reaction is one that is controlled through enzymes within a living system, or by artificial intervention.

Ahh I see. So by definition, abiogenesis is not directed then, as there was no living system, and it's not artificial as there was nothing to direct it.

So we've agreed then that abiogenesis must have been an undirected, by your definition, chemical reaction? In essence: chemistry happens.

I was waiting for rainbow to start this one. Now someone make this 'sticky'. It's going to get heated up soon.

natselrox wrote:I was waiting for rainbow to start this one. Now someone make this 'sticky'. It's going to get heated up soon.

Would that heating be the result of directed or undirected chemical reactions?

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action?

No.
Not unless you consider the workings of an enzyme in a cell to be 'deliberate'. If you do, then please define 'deliberate'.

But that means I must first of all accept your suggestion that enzymes "direct" chemical reactions.

Yes.

I think the less ambiguous, baggage laden term of "catalyse" is more fitting.

You're entitled to your opinion. It is however wrong. Catalysts merely reduce (or in some cases increase) the activation energy of a reaction. Enzymes are Specific for certain reactions. They therefore enhance reactions that are required for Purpose, but do not promote reactions that are not required.

I can go digging through dictionaries if you wish but, in general usage, I would define "deliberate" as a conscious action of an intelligent being. I am sure more rigorous definitions are possible.

You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:[ Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

Also, does such a "directed" reaction detract from the possibility that it might occur under natural circumstances?

No. Every reaction may occur without intervention, however other reactions will also take place simultaneously that are not desired to achieve the Purpose. By directing the reaction, only those reactions required for the Purpose take place.

If man sets fire to wood, are the resulting chemical reactions directed or undirected?

If the fire were to be used to boil water, then yes. The water would not have boiled otherwise, would it?

The car rusting and the water boiling are then perfect examples of the thing I kept trying to explain to you in the other forum.

Whether a guy chooses to leave his car to rust, or the car is just left with no consideration to its circumstances.... it will still rust. Chemistry still happens, regardless of teleology. By the same definition, a scientist taking a car into a laboratory, setting up the same conditions that permit the car to rust, then recording the results is not directed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Same goes for the boiled water. Water boils in nature too, no one's even watching it most of the time, but there's boiling water in numerous places and numerous times. Natural processes causing water to boil, and human processes causing water to boil... still both result in boiling water. That's because they are not intervening in a process, but merely bringing two parts together and permitting that process to occur.

So can we bury the erroneous notion now that numerous experiments conducted in labs can be handwaved away as misrepresentative due to their being under experimental conditions?

And while I'm making requests; can we get a little more transparency with you Rainbow? We're all here discussing this here together, yet you never stake a claim, you just nibble at the edges of what people say. Why not just lay what you think down and we'll discuss that for a change? It's a genuine offer to engage in your ideas.

How did abiogenesis occur in the scenario you entertain as more valid than undirected chemical reactions?

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
Secondly, does the word "directed" not imply some form of deliberate action?

No.
Not unless you consider the workings of an enzyme in a cell to be 'deliberate'. If you do, then please define 'deliberate'.

But that means I must first of all accept your suggestion that enzymes "direct" chemical reactions.

Yes.

Then I shall reject this pending any reason to do otherwise. In what way do enzymes "direct" a chemical reaction? Can you point me to any reputable source that suggests this is a standard usage of the term, as opposed to one you made up?

I think the less ambiguous, baggage laden term of "catalyse" is more fitting.

You're entitled to your opinion. It is however wrong. Catalysts merely reduce (or in some cases increase) the activation energy of a reaction. Enzymes are Specific for certain reactions. They therefore enhance reactions that are required for Purpose, but do not promote reactions that are not required.

And these enzymes have a sense of purpose then, do they?

I can go digging through dictionaries if you wish but, in general usage, I would define "deliberate" as a conscious action of an intelligent being. I am sure more rigorous definitions are possible.

You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!

Funnily enough, that is my point. Enzymes do not carry out deliberate actions in any conventional sense of the word. As such, to use a word that implies a deliberate action in describing their non-deliberate actions is misleading and inappropriate.

rainbow wrote:
You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!

That is just a blatant bait and switch - sort it out, please Rainbow - it does not make for quality discussion when people engage in obfuscatory tactics like this.

UnderConstruction wrote:
My intention initially was to confirm that by "artificial" you meant intelligence of any kind.

No, I didn't include it in the definition. You can include it if you like, but don't expect me to argue your case for you. OK?

Define your terms properly.

I've told you once. If you don't like my definitions, provide better ones.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
My intention initially was to confirm that by "artificial" you meant intelligence of any kind.

No, I didn't include it in the definition. You can include it if you like, but don't expect me to argue your case for you. OK?

OK, I paraphrased a little. If I misunderstood, perhaps you can explain what you actually meant by "man made"? What "artificial" "man made" things can you think of that require no intelligence?

Define your terms properly.

I've told you once. If you don't like my definitions, provide better ones.

Why should I define your terms for you?

OK then, I will suggest we proceed with a definition of "directed chemical reaction" as something along the lines of "one deliberately instigated by an intelligent agent".

Do you agree to this? Do you have any suggestions to refine it? There is little point proceeding unless we agree on definitions.

UnderConstruction wrote:

So are you going to drip feed us the definition then as we question it?

No, I've provided a definition. You have the opportunity to improve it if you feel you can do better. You will not however get away with trying to demand a definition for every definition. For that buy a dictionary. OK?

In that case, if purpose is required, what is the "purpose" of an enzyme and the chemical reactions it catalises?

In the case of an enzyme such as monoamineoxidase, its Purpose is to oxidise amines. The clue is normally in the name.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

So are you going to drip feed us the definition then as we question it?

No, I've provided a definition. You have the opportunity to improve it if you feel you can do better. You will not however get away with trying to demand a definition for every definition. For that buy a dictionary. OK?

In that case, if purpose is required, what is the "purpose" of an enzyme and the chemical reactions it catalises?

In the case of an enzyme such as monoamineoxidase, its Purpose is to oxidise amines. The clue is normally in the name.

What purpose, and why does it have a capital P?

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:
You will really battle to convince anyone that an enzyme is being 'deliberate', but let me not stop you. Good luck!

That is just a blatant bait and switch - sort it out, please Rainbow - it does not make for quality discussion when people engage in obfuscatory tactics like this.

Spear, contribute to the discussion, or butt out. If you've got nothing useful to say - don't say it.