The idea is this: that form and function are intimately related, and that form cannot be thought about in any way separately from the immanent conditions which shape it. — StreetlightX
The idea is this: that form and function are intimately related, and that form cannot be thought about in any way separately from the immanent conditions which shape it. The 'form' we're talking about here of course, is size. — StreetlightX
Of course, proponents of this view would not be much discouraged by your exploding elephant - they would just push "matter" to lower, sub-cellular scales (as, of course, has long since been done in the normal process of scientific reductionism). — SophistiCat
And what role does this inert, formless "matter" play in all this? It seems like a useless kludge, and we should rid our thinking of it. — SophistiCat
My opinion is that what is at issue here is the nature of matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
These are only but a few examples of how form and function and intimately connected, and many more can be provided. — StreetlightX
And this is exactly what quantum mechanics has already demonstrated to us, that how we understand the temporal continuity of a larger object is inadequate for understanding the temporal continuity of very tiny objects — Metaphysician Undercover
The material ontology consisting of inert, amorphous matter substrate as a distinct existent, with form and/or animating spirit or force or process acting on it as another distinct component of existence is both ancient and surprisingly ubiquitous and persistent. For example, ancient materialists, who you would not think of as natural allies of Plato, also believed something like this. And this sort of thinking is still current.
Of course, proponents of this view would not be much discouraged by your exploding elephant - they would just push "matter" to lower, sub-cellular scales (as, of course, has long since been done in the normal process of scientific reductionism). — SophistiCat
Another thing that this video reminded me of (again): You often hear people say how machine-like biological mechanisms appear to be - surely, a hallmark of design! I think this is just a superficial impression that is an artifact of the way we analyze and present scientific models, which is like engineering in reverse (or reverse engineering). The impression I get is the opposite. When you look at living things with an unprejudiced eye, as well as when you learn the bewildering array of biological facts, such as those described in the video, it strikes you just how messy and complicated and thoroughly alien these things are. They are so obviously not designed by anything like a human designer*, but grown, evolved through billions of generations across billions of individuals in a blind and unthinking, but massively integrated process: integrated across all physical scales, all the way to the bio-chemical and even quantum mechanical level — SophistiCat
Matter is not a well-defined term, and it's probably useless to try to reconcile differing definitions/understandings of matter. — tim wood
The issue that the video is discussing is one of the most important in physics - classical physics, in this case, not quantum - the scaling relation between geometry and force or energy. It's simple because it all comes down to basic geometry. — T Clark
Yes I was always puzzled by the Incredible Shrinking Man. How the hell did he manage to break surface tension of water to have a drink? What was happening inside his body? Was everything shrinking? Surely to keep looking like a man his atoms would have to shrink too? This would make it impossible to sustain his health. But if his cells stayed the same then this would lead to his appearance and internal architecture having to change.
I would imagine it would be possible for a body to acclimatise to reduce the number of mitochondria, but what happens when the size of a capillary would have to be smaller than the cells of which it was comprised? How would memories be preserved as brain cells were inevitably lost? — charleton
I disagree for the potential reasons stated above. These seem to be really vacuous and silly thought experiments, because we're not sure what would happen if we actually enlarge the mouse. The metabolic rate may remain the same, or it may slow down. Both are possibilities.'Form', or size in this case, cannot be thought of as transcendentally imposed on some indifferent 'substrate' of material or 'matter': both must be thought of as imminently co-arising from processes of evolution (in the case of living things, anyway). — StreetlightX
Sure,in Aristotelian physics, for Aristotelian physics, but what is that to the baseball player who is concerned with the matter of the bat, the ball, the glove, the grass? Or to anyone else whose concern is not precisely Aristotelian physics? And I am under an impression that matter is exactly not well-defined by Aristotle, being left as a deficiency of form in things not having yet achieved their telos. (Collingwood, The Idea of Nature.)Matter is actually quite well defined in Aristotelian physics.., — Metaphysician Undercover
Is this Aristotle's definition? Why not? I'm sure it worked for him, although I am convinced he recognized its deficiencies as well as anyone. But it says really nothing about what matter is. At some point the question of being becomes a trap - a rabbit hole - of language....as the underlying thing which persists through time, when change occurs. — "Metaphysician
In fact, to prove the absurdity of the mouse exploding or of the elephant freezing, — Agustino
No, it is YOU who needs to pay more attention and read more science. Just because they have more mitochondria does not mean that those mitochondria will all be active producing energy - to begin with, they will not have sufficient hydrocarbon molecules to produce energy. And it is possible that cells have too many mitochondria for their energy needs, in which case nothing bad happens - there's no overheating. All that happens is that some mitochondria are less active than others, and lysosomes start surrounding those mitochondria and breaking them apart. There might be an issue due to increased oxidation and free radicals.To you basic science is absurd, we already know that.
Whilst it might be possible for a mouse to reduce the number of its mitochondria, it is likely that this would have to be achieved over a period of weeks and months. There is a good reason why there are no life-forms the size of elephants that are huge fur-balls with hear rates of a minimum of 300 bpm. Elephants beat at 30bpm
You really need to pay more attention. — charleton
Sure,in Aristotelian physics, for Aristotelian physics, but what is that to the baseball player who is concerned with the matter of the bat, the ball, the glove, the grass? — tim wood
Is this Aristotle's definition? Why not? I'm sure it worked for him, although I am convinced he recognized its deficiencies as well as anyone. — tim wood
But it says really nothing about what matter is. — tim wood
it suffices to just think if a creature could not have evolved that had the shape of the elephant, but the size of a hamster. I think it very well could. — Agustino
Nobody is stating the obvious. If you enlarge the mouse would the metabolism rate not change? I'm guessing it would, because the organism would seek to adapt if it gets too hot. — Agustino
You would have to gerrywork your universe a lot to justify the existence of an evolved hamster-sized elephant. Why would an animal so small evolve a trunk? It doesn't need to apply as much force to lift any amount of water, it doesn't need large, unflexible joints to prevent his own legs from breaking, so it's going to be easier for him to lower his head without toppling over.
Perhaps a world with higher gravity? — Akanthinos
An elephant would make no evolutionary sense at the scale of a hamster. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.