A hot volume of gas does actually weigh more than a cold one per E=mc^2. — Pfhorrest

sure, but that completely does not address what I said about:
"There is nothing about 2nd law entropy that implies that the net energy (e.g., the macro-state of temperature) of the particle ensemble system has to change for the entropy of particle ensemble system to increase or not change. Thus, any entropic gradient can always be reduced to zero (thermal equilibrium) without changing the net energy of the system and, indeed, without doing any work on matter outside of the particle ensemble system."

So, your response seems to be off point.

See here for details on entropy and work done in Isothermal processes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothermal_process#Entropy_changes

notice how T of the gas (thus it's mass) is constant but work was done and entropy changed. Thus, PE of the gas particle ensemble is not defined by or dependent on its work done or its entropy. In fact, any work done by the gas only requires adding heat to the gas to keep its T constant, and we know that added heat only goes to maintain the KE of the gas molecules, b/c only gas molecular KE motion defines temperature, not any PE. So, that is another way to argue that no change of PE is involved.

Please reframe your example "store of potential energy in a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment" to make sense in the above context.

Having a store of potential energy is the same thing as there being an energy gradient to exploit. For example if your store of potential energy is a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment, it is the temperature or pressure differential between the volume and the environment that enables the release of that potential energy — Pfhorrest

I should also point out another argument I have against calling work potential of any statistical mechanics ensembles of particles as "potential energy", as I pointed out above PE is real and physical reality b/c E=mc^2 tells us exactly how much the objects mass has increased when it gains the PE. So, I would argue that if the mass of the particles did not decrease then they lost no energy, incl. no PE, as their entropy naturally increases toward maximum (thermal equilibrium) per 2nd law.

There is nothing about 2nd law entropy that implies that the net energy (e.g., the macro-state of temperature) of the particle ensemble system has to change for the entropy of particle ensemble system to increase or not change. Thus, any entropic gradient can always be reduced to zero (thermal equilibrium) without changing the net energy of the system and, indeed, without doing any work on matter outside of the particle ensemble system. Hence, there is no change of potential energy involved.
It is properly called 'free energy' or 'negenergy', or "work potential", but not "potential energy". To get any useful work out of any entropic gradient you have to redirect and capture the net KE of the particle ensemble system as they move towards max entropy, and redirect it towards useful work instead of just the work/heat of randomly spreading the particle ensemble to explore all their available microstates.

Ah, no, thanks. You are not worth my time. — SophistiCat

likewise. To get more constructive outcomes, hopefully, you learn how to be more constructive in offering useful critiques. bye bye...

Having a store of potential energy is the same thing as there being an energy gradient to exploit. — Pfhorrest

I don't think so. There is no energy gradient towards the potential energy of matter. For example, where is the energy gradient towards the potential energy stored by an apple?

I think you are mixing up entropy gradients, which everyone talks about as needed to do work, and energy gradients. The two are largely unrelated.

For example if your store of potential energy is a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment, it is the temperature or pressure differential between the volume and the environment that enables the release of that potential energy; if the environment was just as hot and high-pressure as the inside of the volume of gas, it would not be usable potential energy, relative to that environment. — Pfhorrest

again, you confound your entropy gradients and energy gradients, which has you getting stuck into a single line of reasoning. Entropy math and principles only applies to statistical mechanics ensembles of particles operating near equilibrium, like gasses, not few body mechanical systems like a rock about to fall of the edge of a cliff.

Similarly, lifting water above the surrounding ground is what lets you get work out of it when it flows back down; if the ground was all the same level as the water, the elevation of the water would be useless. Unless, of course, you then dug out the ground below the level of the water, in which case there would then be a difference, and you could let the water flow down into the hole you dug, and use that to do work. — Pfhorrest

per my above, entropy does not apply to few body mechanical systems like this example, as the water molecules are all bounded in a container that limits their microstates and are in equilibrium, so cannot do work; hence, adding KE to lift them up a potential gradient did not change their entropy, nor did it change any entropy of the closed system. All you are doing there is converting KE into PE, minus dissipative/frictional losses dissipated as heat.

The absence of such a differential is the same thing as the presence of entropy, so "increasing its store of potential energy" is the same thing as "reducing its local entropy". — Pfhorrest

I don't see this a true, per my above. Your consideration of my above apple stored potential energy example will hopefully clarify that. There is no energy gradient to exploit for work to power you towards the apple, and you cannot exploit any potential energy stored by an apple b/c it is stored as potential chemical energy so requires you poses chemical means to release and use it for your own work. Same idea as nuclear potential energy locked up into all matter, you generally need nuclear forces acting means to release and use it for your own work, as in a nuclear bomb chain reaction. Otherwise, that matter w/ stored PE is not useful for work. This is where living beings get there advantage to exploit far more energy than the universe otherwise allows PLA access to, and the more intelligence the living being has the more effective it will be at finding and accessing stored, and locked up, PE, which requires paying much higher upfront KE costs to avoid PLA to get the massive locked up, PE gain. Now, local entropy gradients do help bootstrap that process when the living being has little/no intelligence or means/access to locally stored PE; however, entropy, or even energy, gradients is by far not the most important part of the life story, IMHO.

My definition hinges on the physics concept of a "machine", which is any physical system that transforms energy from one form to another, which is to say it does "work" in the language of physics.

I propose the definition of a property of such physical work, called "productivity", which is the property of reducing the entropy of the system upon which the work is done. — Pfhorrest

BTW, I should point out another major problem with your proposed definition is that it defines the whole universe as living. That is, the physical rules of the universe by default produces stars and planetary systems, which your definition would define as living b/c they were produced by the universal "machine". A star is a machine that "that transforms energy from one form to another, which is to say it does "work" " in producing radiation and new types of atoms. Likewise, a planet "uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself, which is to say, to reduce its own internal entropy (necessarily at the expense of increasing the overall entropy of the environment it is a part of. Mars was doing this for millions of years before its dynamic core ran out of energy and the planet "died". Earth is still doing this today, and even if all life never existed still would do it b/c the Earth has a huge and active dynamic core of energy and the planet must use and dissipate that energy to build new and ever more complex chaotic & dynamic structures to dissipate that entropy/energy, and this keeps the Earth far away from thermal equilibrium with the space it 'lives' within. That is what mountain formation, ocean currents, weathering, Hurricanes, tornados, Jet streams, planetary magnetic shields, etc., all are doing. So, stars + planets systems have all the functions/behavior of a living cell systems under your and apokrisis' definition approach. Maybe you can refine your definition approach to avoid this undesirable problems? That said, I believe my PLA/PE approach is the most fundamental and should avoid all known problems.

cheers!

Are you differentiating “animate vs inanimate” from “living vs nonliving”? I took them to be synonyms for our purposes, in which case a definition of life also divides all matter and energy into those systems that meet that definition (living or animate) and those that do not (nonliving or inanimate). — Pfhorrest

yes, synonymous and covers energy which is carried by the matter.

i.e. an energy gradient to exploit, which are also exactly the conditions in which locally reducing entropy is possible. — Pfhorrest

in many cases this is a plausible model that is contemplated; however, the hypothesis behind my proposed definition is much broader than that and does not necessarily always require a local entropy gradient to exploit when the living mater has already accumulated excess PE (possibly by initially exploiting a local energy gradient). Once it has excess PE then it can "redirect or enact kinetic energy to avoid the path of least action" as recited in my OP definition. This is why I like the PE focused model b/c entropy gradients are not always needed along and given stretch of the organisms path (e.g., just has to burn excess PE until it finds more PE it can accumulate or find entropy gradient to exploit to get PE).

but having an exploitable energy gradient makes it locally possible for a limited system to run counter to that trend — Pfhorrest

as mentioned above, I think it is more complex that that one (maybe most common at lowest life forms). So, I'll offer my analysis and basic mechanics of how my definition/hypothesis might apply to the virus matter. It is what I wrote on the fly (first thoughts), so it is raw, and likely has many kinds of errors, yet should convey the gist of what I generally mean. Including typo/gramo errors by my dictations software. I have not taken the type to proof read it:

That is, if we consider a virus organism as an example, it appears to be an inanimate grouping of molecules until it is in the presence of an environment which activates its complex molecular action to be attracted to and mate with living cells that are hijacked to make copies of itself, whereby the virus is leveraging the potential energy gained by the living cell to carry out all the kinetic energy mechanisms necessary to move and replicate the virus. Once a copy or version of the virus is made the virus as a unique entity has effectively increased its potential energy at the expense of the living organisms reduction of its potential energy. In this way, the virus has a complex context dependent molecular potential energy program which is capable of redirecting natural path of least action forces present in certain environments towards path and destination which makes its molecular program with another organism’s molecular program replication machinery that is powered by the other organisms potential energy. Because the virus has no means to consume energy producing matter (i.e., cannot eat something to increase its potential energy so that it can produce its own goal-directed kinetic energy) it must instead systematically and smartly redirect environmental least action forces through a sequential molecular program that manipulates and redirects those forces like a gliding plane with no engines that glides to and safely lands on its target by simply dynamically adjusting its control services to create its own path of least action towards meeting its target destination which completely diverges from the path of least action which nature (i.e. gravity) would have forced the agent to take had the agent not had any such control surfaces or context dependent controlling program. In this way, according to the foregoing definition, the virus particle is indeed alive and the minimal form of life that can exist because anything less would not be able to acquire and redirect potential energy from its environment to increase its own potential energy. I posit that a virus using a cell’s machinery and PE as a tool to make copies of itself is an increase in the virus’ PE because all the viral copies share a common meaning a purpose of the original virus organism thus it has amplified itself and its kinetic action potential to affect its environment according to effective implied purpose of the common molecular program, much like any social/pack animals increase their PE by cooperating with each other in common purpose and behavioral (re)action.

The distinction being that 'spontaneous objects' can be accounted for in purely physicalist terms, whereas living organisms require the manufacturing of proteins which requires coding. — Wayfarer

interesting idea; however, see my comments above re how my proposed definition says a virus is living matter. That said, in principle, as far as I understand, a virus requires no coding to manufacture any complex functional proteins. They may just have a simple lipoprotein sheath and some surface shapes for lock&key entry. Moreover, a virus uses a living cell's machinery to make itself anyhow, so that would make you think a virus is pure information. Yet, it is, in my estimation, physical functional information in the form of a molecular program state-machine. So, not sure how you would make an information-based definition. any proposals? and, what worse, how would you know it when you only see it from external behavior?

I should mention that, in my definition, all information (incl. coding manufacturing) is comprised within the PE aspect of the definition. So, maybe I've got that covered good enough???

Far from dooming living systems, the PLA, alongside the 2nd law of thermodynamics may be key — SophistiCat

that is an ignorant comment. You clearly do not get any of it, because I'm saying exactly the opposite! You need to better read my OP and subsequent comments before you yap off at the mouth with such nonsense dribble...

given that you are in such great command of current state-of-the-art scholarship on the subject, as you claim to be aware of, then why don't you reply with what you find to be the best scientific definition of what minimal properties constitutes living matter vs inanimate?

If you cannot offer one, your own or what you believe in the most from literature, then I choose to ignore your rants about me not posting literatures best vs Webster's. You should read all the comments on this discussion and you will see that apokrisis cited what he believes to be best state-of-the-art scholarship on the subject, and, while many good points were made, I found and argued how my definition performs better. and, I find apokrisis to be extremely well read, informed, and intelligent on the subject. So, let's see if you can do better... I'm all ears...


I'll address your critiques next.

Fifthly, given the above facts, your theory would need to account for why non-human organisms are more attuned to "the principle of least action" than humans. Your theory is, after all, saying all life contradicts "the principle of least action" but, if I'm correct, non-human organisms, because of their wasteful energy-expending-behavior, would achieve minimum potential energy states at a faster pace than humans and that's another way of saying non-human life-forms are aligned to "the principle of least action", if not relative to inanimate matter, relative to humans. — TheMadFool

good instinct. This definition I'm posting here is a small part of a broader, all encompassing theory I am formulating. My, current, broader theory would answer you here by saying that the more intelligent the matter/system is, it necessarily, on average, must deviate greater from PLA when acting on the greater intelligence, b/c, in my definition of intelligence (to come in a future post along with many other definitions) greater intelligence is just another way of saying to be able to simulate more likely outcomes further out in time and space, which would guide local actions to be proportionately more costly to achieve ever greater future PE gains. Think of intelligence as being able to see past a distant hill to a a hi PE reword goal that PLA completely blocks you from getting to, but intelligence figures out how to get there greatly deviating from PLA at very high current cost (the further out that goal is over ever higher hills, i.e., the greater the intelligence, the ever greater the cost), whereas more limited in scope creatures will follow PLA much more often, thus will do much more efficient local work more often, at the cost of attaining much less PE gains vs net KE expenditure, over time.

another factor to consider is that research has found that all that is needed for life to want to exist is that they can barely exist (no need to thrive). So, nature may tend toward lower intelligence unless competition is so high, and/or local resources are so low that it pays to get smarter to go completely against the PLA river like the salmon...

I hope this satisfactory addresses your question/concerns.

thanks for your great comments and ideas!

I thought that crystals were excluded from my definition because a crystal is not in itself a machine. — Pfhorrest

OK, but my definition goals are far more ambitious than yours! Note that mine covers all matter what-so-ever: "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter.... any grouping of matter or energy which "

The principle of least action is very closely related to entropy, such that veering away from the course least actions is basically the same thing as resisting the increase of entropy. — Pfhorrest

I do not think so. Just the opposite, veering away from the course least actions costs more wasted energy which means the matter will generate more heat (i.e., entropy), which eventually must be transferred to the environment of the motion.

See my comment below to apokrisis re likely fatal problem with all entropy based/focused definitions.

Indeed, I am comfortable with any stab at a black and white definition of life having its interesting grey areas. We may differ on that score. — apokrisis

The only way to then demystify that telic principle is to follow Pattee, Rosen and other semioticians. The scientific account has to be expanded so it is anchored in the duality of physics and symbols, code and process, entropy and information. — apokrisis

OK, but I showed how your proposed black and white definition of life does not work for what even you personally consider as living matter (i.e., when the virus is hijacking its host to copy itself). So, clearly, you are ideologically creating fake gray zones to fit your Semiotics belief of the world; thus, your comfort with a (much) worse B/W definition. I already showed you how the virus has no epistemic cut (i.e., Pattee is wrong), so you now have much cognitive dissonance to workout within your own mind.... You, unfortunately, have the problem that when you only have a (Semiotic) hammer at hand, every problem is a (symbolic) nail. And I've been watching Semiotics hammering away at the same problem (to little/no avail) since at least the early 90s. :wink:

I think you just can't follow the argument. So let's break it down. — apokrisis

You, and the references/articles you cited, never made those arguments, so I cannot get what you never gave. Glad you are finally articulating yourself, and finally attacking my definition directly, which is what I was asking for in my original post and (begging for?) throughout my comments with you. Thanks!

You want to employ the least action principle to define the world of inanimate physical processes. And yet from the very first bit of your definition you introduced the error of mixing entropy and potential energy - "...resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy and decreased potential energy over time." — apokrisis

This is a great point to bring into critical question. Here is my reasoning for that wording: if you only follow the path of least action then you are guaranteed to lose potential energy over time (at least do to real-world energy losses; e.g., even a moon in orbit is slowly losing its potential energy as its kinetic energy (KE) is continually, in part, dissipated to heat or transferred to interacting matter), and both are a monotonic process. As for living matter, we all agree that their potential energy (PE) must not decrease over time, else they would not be able to do any work (to stay alive) b/c they would not have any excess PE available to convert into excess KE, which is needed to avoid the most KE efficient path of least action. Right? So, your only question is really about "...resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy... over time"; however, even you have admitted that only living matter can, and must, continually repair itself against the 2nd law requirement that the net entropy of matter in a system is always increasing, which I tend to agree with. So, the flip-side of your admission on that is that you must agree that inanimate matter must have a "...a tendency of monotonic increased entropy... over time", as required by the 2nd law. Thus, I do not see any error as you purport. Please point out where I'm wrong,
and/or restate/clarify your concern in my above context.

Then when than motion vanishes as it seems to with a pendulum on the upswing, we can still keep track of the now hidden energy by calling it an accumulating potential. — apokrisis

it is not just an accounting gimmick as you think it. PE is real and physical reality b/c E=mc^2 tells us exactly how much the objects mass has increased when it gains the PE.

Now of course, if a semiotic level of dissipative structure exists and is bound by a least action principle, that is a big problem for your definition. — apokrisis

Not true, b/c, as I argue and point out above and before, my definition calls for and requires that living matter must have dissipative structure (be it Semiotic, or whatever) that produce more KE (thus transferring/dissipating more entropy to their environment) than would otherwise occur under PLA, and I require that PE increases, which also means that there is a net decrease in entropy in locking up the energy as potential (not in KE motion). Keep in mind, and do point out where you think I'm wrong, that saying higher KE is just another way of saying higher entropy b/c it means the matter in faster motion is exploring more microstates per unit time, thus the system has higher entropy.

Or maybe not if you realise that it is certainly not the dumb and blind Hamiltonian of Newtonian systems, nor even the dumb and blind dissipative balancing act of the self-organising structures that appear in "far from equilibrium" inanimate systems. It now has to be a new variational principle that provides the right kind of measure for a living system with a memory, a goal, some kind of mind. — apokrisis

See my argument below about why I do not believe "the right kind of measure for a living system " will be based on entropy.

Practicing scientists can see what really makes a working definition. You need some closure principle to create a baseline for measurement - a universal symmetry statement such as the Hamiltonian. And then you need the two opposing forms of action that are the yo-yo symmetry-breaking departures from this baseline. — apokrisis

I am a scientist, and I think you are misunderstanding "definition" here to be a causal theory, law or formula. Please keep clear in mind that my proposed definition of living mater is not meant to measure the degree or causal dynamics of a living system, only that a living system is present. So, your counterpoint here is moot, as the goal here is not to create a baseline for measurement. Instead, as I'm sure you know, the first job of scientific inquiry is to accurately define terms, at least to the binary (B/W) level to define the minimum observable properties of the class, and how to categorize something as belonging to that class or not. In that way, my definition has closure, in that if the matter/system has the properties/dynamics which I call for then it belongs to that class of living.

That is the simplest kind of theory you can produce. The gold standard. You can now actually go out and measure the world. — apokrisis

again, not (yet) proposing a theory here. again, before theories come broad definitions which set the metes and bounds and framework from which theories may be motivated and formulated. So, I think you are way jumping the gun, and should please focus on the merits, or not, of my B/W classification definitions.

And generally, the whole field was energised by Shannon's demonstration that information is the other face of entropy. Physics itself was stumbling into a new information theoretic era where the Planckscale - the unified physics scale - has this "Hamiltonian" metric where entropy uncertainty and information certainty are a symmetry double act like kinetic energy and potential energy. — apokrisis

what do you mean by "entropy uncertainty "? The entropy in quantum mechanics (Von Neumann entropy) is zero during the pure quantum state. So, it seems to make no sense to talk about quantum "entropy uncertainty ". Are you talking about a non-pure state having a density matrix and non-zero Von Neumann entropy? However, that still would not be uncertain entropy. Please clarify.

I should point out that even for pure quantum state systems with no entropy they still have to collapse according to the classical PLA path (per QED).

They understand the actual significance of the least action principle as a way to anchor that. And there is this "double foundations" thing going on where physics itself is starting to ground itself in entropy~information - the spontaneity of fundamental chance and the continuity of fundamental constraint. — apokrisis

I do not expect that any complete and accurate broad B/W definition to classify a living system will be based on entropy. Generally, IMHO, the problem with all entropy based definitions of life is that it is possible for matter to gain potential energy during PLA dynamics without changing or increasing environmental entropy. Thus, matter can have the ability to gain future action potential w/ no change of entropy, and because all living system must gain future action potential to have the ability to create the excess KE to afford to deviate from PLA. So, if your measure is entropy change then such matter could selectively take a deviant path from nature's PLA, yet your entropy based definition would never detect it is actually alive. A virus is a great example of what I mean. Throughout the virus' whole existence "life" at no point is it increasing the entropy of the environment, even while morphing itself to attack and evade all the host's defenses, even while guiding and morphing itself to break through the cell wall, even while it guides and morphs itself to get into the nucleus (etc.), even while it is hijacking the replication machinery (thus all hidden from entropy based definition ), and not until it actually starts making copies of itself does it even potentially show up on the entropy based definition radar, but even then it is arguable that making copies of itself does not increase entropy because there are deletion of (molecular) bits, just rearrangement of existing ones that make its kind vs the host's kind (thus neutral entropy).

Hence, I choose to avoid entropy like the plague! Instead, my PLA and PE based definitions would detect the virus as being living matter the moment it takes a different path than, for an imperfect example, a similarly sized dust particle would when entering the host.

I look forward to anything that finds/establish real problems with my PLA and PE based definitions, as I'm not easily going to switch to entropy and definitely not switching to symbols in any case.

TIA!

You want to treat live vs death, animate vs inanimate, as dualistic categories. And so any greyness or vagueness has to be eliminated from "the holy definitions".

But my organic and semiotic perspective takes the opposite view. Definitions are pragmatic. Differences are only relative. Vagueness is how anything new could even originate as a process of symmetry breaking development. — apokrisis

did you not notice that the title of the discussion is "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter"

are you not aware that Scientific Definitions generally are never to be vague, and have the utmost goal to be black or white, and only include gray when there is a lack of theory or understanding of how to tighten the definition better. So, any vagueness or gray zones are a failing, yet still can help scientific progress as a "best working theory".

In this regard, I am only interested in forming the best Scientific Definition, which you, and Semiotics at large, have the opposite interest, goal, and world view.

Accordingly, I will be responsive to and appreciate if you could constructively critique my proposed Scientific Definition, instead of proposing I abandon my goal and go with your feel-good, arm-waving, vague ideas about philosophical hallmarks of life.

So far, this is the only constructively critique my proposed Scientific Definition you have yet made:

Lineweaver covers this in multiple papers, showing the evolution of the Universe as a series of steps - the symmetry-breakings that cause it to fall out of thermal equilibrium and so find itself forced to use dissipative structure to get back on track. Eg: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305214.pdf

By the way, this is its own complication on any least action account of cosmic evolution of course. — apokrisis

I am not trying to account for cosmic evolution, so this comment is off point. Again, I will be very eager and responsive to and appreciate if you could constructively critique my proposed Scientific Definition, esp. where/if my largely basing it on the physics Principle of least action.

Tornadoes and dust devils are also borderline dissipative structures if you are trying to force a biotic/abiotic division on nature. ...
So the dead/alive distinction is very easy to apply to nature when we talk about rocks vs wombats. And becomes a suitably grey matter when we talk about tornadoes vs prions.

The cites I have given on the issue address two issues. — apokrisis

no, tornadoes are not alive, and my definition clearly excludes it, and yours says they are 'maybe alive'. as I point out, I found the whole coherent self-organizing dissipative structures to be largely useless nonsense towards making a tight Scientific Definition. Again, that is what countless natural processes do with astounding complexity building: ocean currents, Hurricanes, dust devils, tornados, Jet streams, etc., . So, again, it is all useless for an scientific definition of living matter to cite or talk about these structures.

Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) reactions are a classic example of inorganic systems being able to evolve better least action paths for themselves - convection cells that transfer heat with better efficiency.

my definition does not say anything about the matter evolving a better least action paths for themselves. Please read it closely, it says:
"enact kinetic energy to avoid the path of least action in at least one environment and situation, wherein the enacted kinetic energy of the organism tends to increase the organisms total potential energy over time thereby reducing its net entropy and perpetuating its unique, non-least-action existence, by self-directed reproduction of a similarly living kind as itself, and wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity.

So, however interesting BZ reactions are, they do not ever increase its total potential energy and does not perpetuate its existence by self-directed reproduction, and thus my Scientific Definition would exclude the BZ as being living matter.
For example, BZ reactions require a human continuously add consumed reagents to keep the wave oscillation going. So, I don't understand why you even mention it here. Again, I am only interested here in a Scientific Definition and counter examples that create problems for my proposed Scientific Definition. I await your keen input on that, which has yet to manifest, so maybe that means I've got a great "black and white" Scientific Definition here???

And becomes a suitably grey matter when we talk about ... prions

Note that prions have been shown to reproduce by non-genetic means (see below Wiki), and we can assume they do Darwinian evolution b/c their conformal shapes, as with all protein structures, do not replicate exactly and are very degenerate in their functional action. Thus, I say the prion clearly shoots down any Scientific Definition of living matter based on Petty or Semiotics- no gray zone there!
BTW, I gave you another mispelling of Pettee since it gives you some good feelings, as my mispellings are likely a Freudian slip on how little I regard his/Semiotics ideas with regard to useful Scientific endeavors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion#:~:text=Prion%20variants%20of%20the%20prion,as%20%22mad%20cow%20disease%22)
Until 2015 all known mammalian prion diseases were considered to be caused by the prion protein, PrP; in 2015 multiple system atrophy was found to be transmissible and was hypothesized to be caused by a new prion, the misfolded form of a protein called alpha-synuclein.[9] The endogenous, properly folded form of the prion protein is denoted PrPC (for Common or Cellular), whereas the disease-linked, misfolded form is denoted PrPSc (for Scrapie), after one of the diseases first linked to prions and neurodegeneration.[29][72] The precise structure of the prion is not known, though they can be formed spontaneously by combining PrPC, homopolymeric polyadenylic acid, and lipids in a protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA) reaction even in the absence of pre-existing infectious prions[73]. This result is further evidence that prion replication does not require genetic information.[74]

Swenson, Schneider and Kay, Lineweaver, Salthe and many more have hammered out the basics of how life and mind arise as dissipative structures with the intelligence to exploit entropic gradients. — apokrisis

You are being way too accepting and mentally comfortable with loose concepts on this subject. For example, Schneider does not point to or help with any definition of life. As stated, the closest thing Schneider says to a definition seems to be this part:
" We suggest that, in nonequilibriumsituations, systems will take advantage of allavailable means to resist the gradientsresponsible for the nonequilibrium condition.Furthermore, the stronger the applied gradient,the greater the effect that the equilibriumattractor will have on the system. Emergenceof coherent self-organizing structures are theexpected response of systems as they attempt toresist and dissipate the external gradients thatare moving them away from equilibrium."

However, that is so vague and not specific to living systems so it is practically useless. For example, nearly all the dynamic processes in the whole Earth are "coherent self-organizing structures in response to resist and dissipate the external gradients that are moving them away from equilibrium". That is what ocean currents, Hurricanes, tornados, Jet streams, etc., all are doing. So, it is all useless for an scientific definition of living matter to cite or talk about these dissipative structures.

Clearly, this is why you did not try to employ any of that feel-good philosophical jargon in your definition, which I "twisted your arm" to produce.

So, you citing these things as clear and complete definitions means that your understanding of the scientific method is clearly very limited, or you true motivation here is not scientific, but to serve your own philosophical/religious views.

With that established, I then define "life" as "self-productive machinery": a physical system that uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself, which is to say, to reduce its own internal entropy (necessarily at the expense of increasing the overall entropy of the environment it is a part of). — Pfhorrest

I do like your general direction as well, however, your particular definition Suffers from including Crystal growth As a living being, because Crystal growth uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself (Build its more ordered lower entropy structure) So it does reduce its own internal entropy And transfers the entropy difference as he to the environment.

My definition gets around the crystal growth problem by requiring a net gain of potential energy And that the work done must not always be the most Energy efficient Rate of work, which inanimate matter must always do.

So if you see my above discussion with regard to prions, according to my definition when the prion makes a copy of itself it has increased its potential energy in that it has amplified its action potential by having more of the same/Similar action possible than if it was only its own single self. I have to learn more about protein folding and prion behavior to say whether they always follow the path of least action or not. I suspect they don't, however. So, I suspect my definition would call them as living.

The universal increase of entropy dictated by the second law of thermodynamics is the essence of death and decay, and life in short is anything that fights against that. — Pfhorrest

I think that is problematic as well because gravity does fight against the second law of thermodynamics as it reduces entropy when matter clumps up together ( less micro-states are available for the matter to explore). So anything that uses such lines of definition I believe would not be viable. My general intuition, is that all entropy based definitions of life would be flawed. I'm still thinking through that and when I go through the Negtropic Articles And arguments that apokrisis Made, I will post some more Reasoned entropy based analysis with regard to living matter. However, I am much more comfortable with an energy and work Framework of defining life than a nebulous/abstract and information entropy related one.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts on other topics so I look forward to your further thoughts and/or critique on the subject.

Cheers!

I would go with Howard Pattee's epistemic cut.
"Rate-independent symbols regulating rate-dependent dynamics" — apokrisis

I read that Pattee white paper. Thanks for citing it. I do like his thinking and analysis with regard to the genetic coding versus phenotype and functional execution. That is an area I have long been wanting to make some headway on but have had to focus My very limited time in other areas over the years.

However, with regard to living versus inanimate, First off, I do not to agree with the framework or conclusions of Pattee. while it has some interesting concepts, I find it generally obvious on many levels and I don't find it to be a useful, most general framework. It is simply a flavor of Semiotics, which I have always found to be myopic and to anthropomorphic to build a proper Deep fundamental theory around.

In my prior post I Mentioned two counterexamples of how Pattee & semiotics fail To classify a virus As living Matter. and, how a prion Eludes and confounds classification in their framework.

I will make More detailed counterpoints below.


If you are not aware of prions, learn the basics at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion#:~:text=Prion%20variants%20of%20the%20prion,as%20%22mad%20cow%20disease%22)
The word prion, coined in 1982 by Stanley B. Prusiner, is a portmanteau derived from protein and infection, hence prion,[19][20] and is short for "proteinaceous infectious particle",[9] in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to other proteins

So prions Do the protein folding that Pattee says is the first epistemic cut and they can self replicate themselves so according to you and Patty they must be alive. Right? However, a prion lacks a Separate genotype (no symbols encoding in its Hyper complex functional shape) and phenotype in one. I think Pattee's definition of life which you are quoting would have to conclude that prions are dead. However, are the various degenerate folding's of the prion its symbolic structure as well?

Yet, in my proposed definition they might be alive if they ever avoid taking the path of least action and gain more net potential energy by doing so, which I suspect they do at least in some cases, and they self-replicate. My first instinct is to call prions alive within the Environmental context of Animal metabolism, much like some bacteria can only exist within a living host metabolism. Prions Seem to be more at the border of alive/Inanimate than even viruses in my estimation. So I figure they are a much better test of definitions.

There are many fundamental And serious problems with your proposed definition based on Pettee, Which I believe make it unsuitable as a broad definition of life and offers no Improvement or counterpoint to my definition, thus not a useful contribution to a better definition of life in my proposal. Here are some basic reasons:

[1] Your definition Suffers from being to anthropomorphic and limited to the most common and maybe only example of life that we have, which is based on genotype versus phenotype evolution. This is not necessarily a generic principle of life and is most likely just a particular happenstance of one variation of it. A prion, As I point out above, is a hint at other alternatives that could exist in the universe. Moreover, it classifies a virus as Completely dead Matter, even though you personally believe the virus is alive during the hijacking stage of its existence. So even by your own Beliefs, your definition (Based on Patee) is wrong.
[2] Your definition Requires knowing internal details of the matter (Such as whether it has a genotype Evolutionary Internal regulatory/replication mechanism), which are generally not knowable especially from afar or without very sophisticated technology.
[3] even if we have very sophisticated technology and science Available, your definition Requires doing The near impossible feat of finding an epistemic cut in the matter to Define it as living.
[4] Your definition completely Requires identifying symbols being present in the matter, which seems like a ridiculous and impractical requirement to me. See pettee "Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life."

Where as my definition Does not suffer from any of the above problems, and indeed provides a clear solution to each. That is, For example:

[1] My definition Suffers Is completely generic as to any type of life Forms, not limited To those based on genotype versus phenotype evolution. So, if true, is more likely to be a generic principle of life . For example, in my definition a virus Is clearly living Matter At all its stages of life including its dormant stage, and a prion May well be living matter as well.
[2] My definition does not Requires knowing any internal details of the matter (No symbols, epistemic cut, etc.). It draws its conclusions based only the external dynamic behavior Of the matter as it behaves in its Various environments, which are generally knowable, without very sophisticated technology.
[3] My definition Requires Only

external observations of the matter As it behaves along It's various paths of action. So, For example, no need to Find the near impossible to find "epistemic cut".


So, For at least the above reasons, your Definition is not a practical definition for Properly classifying all matter in the universe and establishing a metric for the earliest stage where inanimate matter transitions to living matter.

By the way, I believe Pettee is wrong about this statement in his conclusion section: "Physics largely ignores the exceptional effects of individual (subjective) constraints and boundary conditions and focuses on the general dynamics of laws."

The Principle of least action (Which all of physics including quantum QED and My proposed definition are based on) Focus on the global action that matter/energy takes throughout its path through a field Largely irrespective of any local general dynamics of laws. All that needs to be known are the boundary conditions and the field which acts on the particle throughout its path between the start and finish points.

I should also point out, that it is very curious that you were initially touting an entropic definition of life as being the key defining principle ( e.g., negentropic), But when I asked you to make a concise definition you completely drop that and just focus on pettee's semiotics Genotype versus phenotype symbolic evolution mechanism. So, I take that to mean that you agree with me that entropic definitions are fundamentally flawed and unsuitable as a means to define life versus inanimate.

While I appreciate your attempts here at Offering other definitions, I do not find your Definition Related points and contributions in this regard to be helpful or better performing than my definition. I look forward to your feedback and may be an improved definition that does not suffer from all the problems I have pointed out. I will soon be giving you feedback on your entropic Based counterpoints after I read those papers. However, I'm still pretty sure they will suffer from serious problems along the lines as I pointed out in a prior post.

Thanks again!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting citations from your Pettee Reference:

This apparent isolation of symbolic expression from physics is born of an epistemic necessity, but ontologically it is still an illusion. In other words, making a clear distinction is not the same as isolation from all relations. We clearly separate the genotype from the phenotype, but we certainly do not think of them as isolated or independent of each other. These necessary non-integrable equations of constraint that bridge the epistemic cut and thereby allow for memory, measurement, and control are on the same formal footing as the physical equations of motion. They are called non-integrable precisely because they cannot be solved or integrated independently of the law-based dynamics. Consequently, the idea that we could usefully study life without regard to the natural physical requirements that allow effective symbolic control is to miss the essential problem of life: how symbolic structures control dynamics.
…
Physics largely ignores the exceptional effects of individual (subjective) constraints and boundary conditions and focuses on the general dynamics of laws. This is because constraints are assumed to be reducible to laws (although we know they are not reducible across epistemic cuts) and also because the mathematics of complex constraints is often unmanageable. Philosophers have presented innumerable undecidable metaphysical models about the mind-brain cut, and physicists have presented more precise but still undecidable mathematical models about quantum measurement. But at the primeval level, where it all began, the genotype-phenotype cut is now taken for granted as ordinary chemistry.
...
Wigner concluded with a speculation about life that there may be a conflict between laws of heredity and quantum theory (see also Wigner, 1961).
6. I define a symbol in terms of its structure and function. First, a symbol can only exist in the context of a living organism or its artifacts. Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life. I find it gratuitous to use the concept of symbol, even metaphorically, in physical systems where no function exists. Symbols do not exist in isolation but are part of a semiotic or linguistic system (Pattee, 1969a). Semiotic systems consist of (1) a discrete set of symbol structures (symbol vehicles) that can exist in a quiescent, rate-independent (non-dynamic) states, as in most memory storage, (2) a set of interpreting structures (non-integrable constraints, codes), and (3) an organism or system in which the symbols have a function (Pattee, 1986). There are innumerable symbol functions at many hierarchical levels, but control of construction came first.

I read that Pattee white paper. First off, I tend not to agree with the framework or conclusions of Pattee. while it has some interesting concepts, I find it generally obvious on many levels and I don't find it to be a useful, most general framework. I will make counterpoints in response to your original post on that.

It is alive when it is in the middle of hijacking some host cell's metabolic machinery. That fits the definition. — apokrisis

I don't believe you are interpreting Pattee correctly. If you are a follower of his theories then you have to conclude that a virus is always Inanimate and dead. I cite some passages below to support that conclusion. The main passage is where he says the epistemic cut Happens only at protein folding. Sense of virus itself absolutely never engages in protein folding then according to Pattie it is never life. Moreover, Patty says that you have to consider the organism as a whole and that no part stand alone a considering if it is alive or not. Moreover, he says that the DNA is certainly not alive, Antivirus is nothing more than glorified DNA wrapped in her lipo-protein sheath. If you Believe otherwise based on Pattie then we await your detailed counter arguments along with Supporting citations.

If it is your personal belief that a virus is dead until it is hijacking the replication function of the cell I would say that your hypothesis has many problems and flaws as I'll point out some In a subsequent post.

If a viral particle were found as some molecular arrangement in the inanimate world, it would count as an extraordinarily negentropic event - a chance event beating the entropic odds by any number of lifetimes of a universe. — apokrisis

This type of argument is among the weakest and what is commonly employed by creationists to "prove" that the universe and life had to have been produced by God's intelligent design Because such "a chance event beating the entropic odds by any number of lifetimes of a universe". So, your Reasoning is in very poor company in that regard.

I generally have a disdain for any arguments that rely on statistics to come to any conclusion. You know, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics... For example, using your line of reasoning you would have to conclude that the planet Earth is alive because for all The molecules that make up the earth and its atmosphere to be exactly configured the way they are and to move with the dynamics exactly the way they do would be "a chance event beating the entropic odds by any number of lifetimes of a universe". However not even your proposed definition of life would consider the earth as Alive, so nor should it consider a virus being alive based on such very weak statistical arguments.

So by implication, the dormant virus is still part of the animate world rather than the inanimate one. Chance couldn't produce it. — apokrisis

By way of additional example of how flawed your reasoning is on that, a virus that is exposed Outside of its host environment Quickly degrades and becomes unviable to infect living cells (Such is COVID19 "Dies" After being in the air for four hours), yet the molecular difference between its viable state of matter and its inviable state of matter is very small with respect to entropy differences. So, your line of statistical impossibility reasoning would still call the degraded inviable virus as living because it still "would count as an extraordinarily negentropic event - a chance event beating the entropic odds by any number of lifetimes of a universe". Hence, that line of reasoning is completely fallacious And not Constructive towards a scientific definition of living versus inanimate matter.

But Darwinian mechanism could produce it easily.

Viruses do not have any epistemic cut So according to Patty no Darwinian mechanism could involve them. Besides, I do not see any clear path of how they would've evolved from scratch. So, since you claim it is so easy to produce a virus under Darwinian mechanisms then What would you Propose is a plausible Darwinian mechanism that could have produced a virus from scratch? And, please do start from "first life was some kind of proton gradient, autocatalytic, dissipative cycle that emerged in the very particular environment of a warm, acidic, ocean floor thermal vent ". I, and the whole scientific community, eagerly await for your answer on that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting citations from your Pettee Reference:
Since we know that a heritable genetic memory is an essential condition for life, my approach to the problem of determinism began by expressing the precise requirements for a constraint that satisfies the conditions for heritability. I can do no better than to restate my early argument (Pattee, 1969b):
...
The only useful description of memory or heredity in a physical system requires introducing the possibility of alternative pathways or trajectories for the system, along with a 'genetic' mechanism for causing the system to follow one or another of these possible alternatives depending on the state of the genetic mechanism. This implies that the genetic mechanism must be capable of describing or representing all of the alternative pathways even though only one pathway is actually followed in time. In other words, there must be more degrees of freedom available for the description of the total system than for following its actual motion. . . Such constraints are called non-holonomic."
In more common terminology, this type of constraint is a structure that we say controls a dynamics. To control a dynamical systems implies that there are control variables that are separate from the dynamical system variables, yet they must be described in conjunction with the dynamical variables. These control variables must provide additional degrees of freedom or flexibility for the system dynamics. At the same time, typical control systems do not remove degrees of freedom from the dynamical system, although they alter the rates or ranges of system variables. Many artificial machines depend on such control
....
This demonstrates that laws cannot describe the pragmatic function of measurement even if they can correctly and completely describe the detailed dynamics of the measuring constraints.
This same argument holds also for control functions which includes the genetic control of protein construction. If we call the controlled system, S, and the control constraints, C, then we can also look at the combined system (S + C) in which case the control function simply disappears into the dynamics. This epistemic irreducibility does not imply any ontological dualism. It arises whenever a distinction must be made between a subject and an object, or in semiotic terms, when a distinction must be made between a symbol and its referent or between syntax and pragmatics. Without this epistemic cut any use of the concepts of measurement of initial conditions and symbolic control of construction would be gratuitous.
"That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former, we can follow up all physical processes (in principle at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is meaningless. The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. . . but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be placed somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously, i.e., if a comparison with experiment is to be possible." (von Neumann, 1955, p.419)
....
The concept of an epistemic cut must first arise at the genotype-phenotype control interface. Imagining such a subject-object distinction before life existed would be entirely gratuitous, and to limit control only to higher organisms would be arbitrary. The origin problem is still a mystery. What is the simplest epistemic event? One necessary condition is that a distinction is made by a subject that is not a distinction derivable from the object. In physical language this means a subject must create some form of distinction or classification between physical states that is not made by the laws themselves (i.e., measuring a particular initial condition, removing a degeneracy or breaking a symmetry). In the case of the cell, the sequences of the gene are not distinguished by physical laws since they are energetically degenerate.
....
In the case of the cell, the sequences of the gene are not distinguished by physical laws since they are energetically degenerate. Where does a new distinction first occur? It is where this memory degeneracy is partially removed, and that does not occur until the protein folding process. Transcription, translation, and copying processes treat all sequences the same and therefore make no new distinctions, but of course they are essential for constructing the linear constraints of the protein that partially account for the way it folds. The folded protein removes symbol vehicle degeneracy, but it still has many degenerate states (many conformations) that are necessary for it to function as a non-integrable constraint.

It is important to recognize that the details of construction and folding at this primeval epistemic cut make no sense except in the context of an entire self-replicating cell. A single folded protein has no function unless it is a component of a larger unit that maintains its individuality by means of a genetic memory. We speak of the genes controlling protein synthesis, but to accomplish this they must rely on previously synthesized and organized enzymes and RNAs. This additional self-referent condition for being the subject-part of an epistemic cut I have called semantic (or semiotic) closure (Pattee, 1982, 1995). This is the molecular chicken-egg closure that makes the origin of life problem so difficult.....

If the competition here is for the most concise definition, — apokrisis

no. the 'competition' (if you must) is for the most complete, accurate, and concise definition. So, if your proposed one does not hold up against all counter-examples it would not be complete or accurate, and, thus, being concise would be irrelevant.

"Rate-independent symbols regulating rate-dependent dynamics" — apokrisis

So, for example, what exactly does that say about whether a virus is alive or inanimate?

I can point you on your path, but I can't walk if for you. — apokrisis

understood. In other words, thanks for confirming that you do not have or know of a concise Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter. So, maybe science has not clearly defined it? BTW, nothing 'hostile' about asking for that given you claim it has already been done.

Terribly sorry not to be furthering your own entropy-creating enterprise here. :lol:

Is it really such a shock that science has already worked all this out for itself? — apokrisis

I'll review and consider your rebuttals tomorrow. However, given you believe science has this all worked out then you should state here your or their concise Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter, as I have proposed mine. pointing to white papers making arm waving arguments is not a concise Scientific Definition. If you are not able or willing to do that here then you are not Being constructive Towards moving forward in this regard, and most likely do not have/know of one.

And Darwinian evolution is a way of exploring the space of possible paths. — apokrisis

You cannot compare QED with Darwinian evolution. QED actually makes my point where everything in nature must take the path of least action including All quantum paths When they collapse into classical physics. Darwinian evolution is certainly not finding paths of least action, and does not help the discussion here because Darwinian evolution presumes you started with a living being, so it is circular to mention it here. The path of least action, As defined in physics, for any living system is simply to die. So all your commentary seems to be off point because you are Confounding that meaning of Least action paths With paths that living beings figure out that ultimately end up costing them less later on, whereas inanimates have to always take a more costly path. As I point out in my definition I'm calling the latter a "sentient path of least action", She is a global phenomenon where the natural physics path of least action is a local phenomenon. Another way to put it, is that I'm saying natural inanimate processes must always do locally optimized work, Whereas living beings can hop over Potential gradient barriers to Achieve globally optimized work. This has nothing to do with negentropy concepts. Get it now?

Please reread my definition and my above comments and reframe your arguments accordingly. So far, most all of your comments seem to be off point and wrongly interpreting things, thus not Being constructive Towards moving forward in this regard.

So this says that the least action path does win. — apokrisis

No it is not saying that. All that it is saying is that the second law requires all potential differences to be minimized and neutralized wherever Naturally possible. The path of least action is saying much more than that. It is specifying an exact way in which those entropic gradients are minimized. That is, Natural processes can only minimize entropic Gradients in the most efficient manner at every single point of time in the path ( i.e. locally And immediately as the wave functions of the particle(s) evolve). That is, at Each and every point In their path they have to do the most Kinetic energy efficient work possible by physics. Whereas living organisms have the option to do inefficient work At any point in a path when it gives It some future potential energy advantage, which is a Simple, plain English Rephrasing of my definition.

Get it now?

This may make your own contribution rather redundant. It has all been worked out with clarity already. — apokrisis

I don't think you understanding my point Which I made before and repeat above. Please specifically answer to my point above and where you think I am wrong about it.

Okay, so I amended my definition to add the following two constraints:
"and perpetuating its unique, non-least-action existence, by self-directed reproduction of a similarly living kind as itself, and wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity.."

You can see the insertions I made to the original post.

Note that I originally did not see the utility to include the ability to replicate themselves Because under my framework that is just another way to increase one's potential energy; However, I added explicit self replication and no external control limitations to exclude AI robots and Man-made machines in general. Further note, that I currently am not so interested In debating whether man-made machines can never be considered alive. So, for the sake of argument And simplicity here, let's assume that Man-made Machines can never be considered alive. That is not to say, At least according to my current thinking, that they cannot be sentient beings in my framework, however. I know that has Many contradictions, yet it would confound things too much to go down that rabbit hole at this early point, and I'm sure you or others are not going to argue that a robot plugging in power to recharge itself is A living being according to any reasonable definition. So, for now let's just exclude that as I've done in my amended definition.

I'm Look forward to more great scrutiny and discourse on this!

So it is not that life veers off from least action paths. Instead, it exists because it constructs new ones. It burrows through barriers that were preventing the inorganic from doing a better job on releasing its potential energy. — apokrisis

I don't believe that is true because he path of least action in any environment is set by the physics And forces. Living beings cannot change the physics or forces they can only spend Greater kinetic energy At any given point then least action would dictate so as to establish a future gaining potential energy which could be by way of finding new paths or creating less costly ones to get to any given destination. Again I don't think you understand the path of least action in physics, or please explain to me were you believe I'm thinking wrong about it.

A tornado is a dissipative structure doing the Second Law's will. But it is fragile - conjured up by chance circumstance. — apokrisis

I don't think anyone is saying a tornado is alive?

And then a coding machinery to stabilise this path - this dissipative structure - is also definitional. — apokrisis

I'm not convinced that is a fundamental requirement for life. For example, a virus exist just fine without any coding machinery to stabilize its path or repair Changes from its original code. Just the opposite, it uses those "errors" to explore new ways to more effectively search for, And create new types of, hosts and replicate in any given environment.

Swenson, Schneider and Kay, Lineweaver, Salthe and many more have hammered out the basics of how life and mind arise as dissipative structures with the intelligence to exploit entropic gradients. — apokrisis

I don't think Exploiting and entropic gradients Is the key principle In defining life, because nature itself is all about neutralizing all in tropic gradients so there is no need for life in that sense that is just the second law, like osmosis, at work. No entropic gradient means no work can be done at all. The fact that living creatures like everything in the universe Must find and exploit entropic variance to exist does not help define them Apart from inanimate matter, IMHO. For example, You might say a crystal Is alive because it is exploiting entropic Gradients in its environment to create its negentropic, Highly organized lower entropy, structure and replicates itself. So, apparently, you, Swenson, Schneider and Kay Would say a crystal Growing And replicating itself is alive? in their context how would you say if crystal is not alive?

In my definition, a crystal Growing is certainly not alive.

Thanks for your very thoughtful feedback and input. I will read those scientific Papers later. However I did scan over their abstracts and conclusions and My initial quick take is that I do not believe it conflicts or improves the my approach. For one thing the principle of least action is not related to entropy as far as I know. Moreover, This statement by SWENSON Would seem to contradict with the principlle of least action:
" In particular, which path(s) out of all available paths will a system take to minimize potentials or maximize the entropy? The answer (the law of
maximum entropy production) is the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the
potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints. "

Because the rate of kinetic energy, which is what creates entropy, In a natural system at any given point in its path will Not exceed The lowest action cost to convert the potential energy into kinetic over the whole path from start to finish. The path of least action does not create the maximum entropy. Moreover, it is the opposite, path of most action, that creates the most entropy, Because kinetic energy is released to fast for inertia to absorb thus Requiring more power thereby creating Much greater excess dissipated heat to the environment, which contradicts what they are saying and what nature actually does. Can you reconcile Or correct me that?

Life remains still tied to the least action principle. — apokrisis

I don't think you understand the path of least action because it occurs at every point in the path of action, it is not some net entropy concept. For example, if you are standing in place at any given moment On planet Earth your path of least action is to fall dead to the ground. This has nothing to do with creating maximum entropy or whatever they are talking about.

Again, please reconcile or correct me Where you Believe I am Thinking Wrong.

I Have been actually actively trying to reconcile Second law entropy with the path of least action, so I am very happy that you brought it up, might help me tighten up And expand my Hypothesis/Theories.

Thanks again!

Excellent point! I have already considered this yet did not encoded in my definition. I will soon post the revised definition that excludes that possibility. The way that I exclude that As a living being, In general terms, is that the behavior must not be programmed Or directed by an external consciousness Or entity ( such as a human who figured the whole thing out and encoded, even if indirectly, the Goal and behavior).

I will think about this more deeply later, yet I am already pretty sure that The above addition would also exclude genetic algorithms that you could say would try to Pseudo-randomly learn that potential energy increasing Opportunity and behavior. I probably should build in a few more caveats in the definition to guard against other anomalous variance on that theme.

Thanks!

it appears to me that the underlying question is what is the source of the spark of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

Thanks for your comment; however, I have to respectfully disagree. Consciousness is a logically separate aspect and capability beyond what is the minimum required for life. For example, as I mentioned before, my definition concludes that a virus is certainly a living being. So, I think you would have to argue that a virus is certainly not alive Or shoot down The part of my definition that says it is, Without the use of consciousness as your argument. Because the virus has no consciousness in any reasonable or useful meaning of the word. And, don't go down the panpsychism Rabbit hole which would conclude that all inanimate matter is alive as well, hence the whole thing would a completely useless (non-Scientific, religion-like) Line of inquiry.

What of advanced AI? — Outlander

I forgot to answer this part of your replies. That is a very interesting point, which I was not considering so far. I may need to refine my definition to exclude such anomalies. However, my immediate thinking is that my current definition excludes current advanced AI systems because they do not direct their (or other's) kinetic energy to net increase their potential energy. A computer system that they operate within are purely second law Entropy degenerating Systems that purely burn energy, and do not self acquire or create any physical potential energy within their physical system. So, I think my current definition wording is sufficient to exclude current advanced AI systems. I'd be curious if anyone can make a good argument otherwise.

Note, my current line of thinking is that even if you had a Physical system as intelligent As a human, it Does not necessarily need to be alive to do so. So we should not confound the two, in my mind.

Thanks for your good lines of questioning.

Radiation, chemical reactions — Outlander

Yes those necessarily can only follow the path of least action so are inanimate.

nails, or hair (whether attached to a living person or not) — Outlander

Yes those necessarily can only follow the path of least action so are inanimate, Even though they are produced as a byproduct of, and/or connected to a, living organism.

flesh — Outlander

Flesh does not follow the path of least action which would be to simply to disintegrate, And to maintain its structure and processes it requires continuous input of energy And it directs its kinetic energy to obtain more potential energy. Thus flesh is certainly a living being.

Also, living organisms have or can have will or intent to avoid taking the least amount of action, but our bodies are still inevitably doing so... the aging process, etc. — Outlander

Yes while I do understand that line of thinking I don't believe it applies here. For one thing, the aging process is a programmed cell death process. All living organisms initially have a period of net anabolic growth (no aging), except for accumulating Random metabolic induced structural damage that are continuously repaired until the DNA itself is too damaged. This is just the struggle of a living process against entropy. All the repair mechanisms in living organisms down to the DNA repair level are exactly the opposite of taking the path of least action (as my definition points out), which would path would otherwise be simply to allow the second law to let entropy destroy it.

Or is this not relevant? — Outlander

Please note that the my definition does not say that living beings defy the second law of thermal dynamics, just that they can create Personal/local regions that That at least for some period of time Have free will to shift entropy to the environment.

I'd have said anything that is an 'organism' that's not dead or 'accumulates knowledge' or rather is capable of possessing it is sufficient enough — Outlander

Your definition is circular because it uses the word "Not dead". Moreover, 'accumulate knowledge' Is likewise circular because knowledge is always defined in terms of some kind of meaning which requires a living organism to create the meaning and use it as knowledge. Another problem with your definition, I believe, is that it would predict that a virus is inanimate, not living, because it does not accumulate knowledge, where is my definition, as I pointed out, would conclude a virus is certainly a living being.

I look forward to more astute challenges and ideas!

yes, Nominalism was off topic. the 3rdness is very long, but I'll scan it over for anything that catches my eye/mind.

thx.

I disagree with your various Views and approaches to the problem, however, I very much like your direction and style of thinking. Generally, I find them very Projecting and anthropomorphic. However, because you likewise come from the hard sciences, your points are very worthy of addressing, as I do so In some detail below.

A proper answer would require a proper definition of consciousness which is, of course, problematic. — jambaugh

Yes, historically that has been the main problem. I believe I am making very good progress on a formal definition of consciousness. I have an initial framework that seems to be useful in coherent. I am even making some practical progress on the hard problem of qualia, at least for certain types.

consciousness is unboundedly self reflective. — jambaugh

As with your Tiger analogy below, I believe you are distinguishing a certain type of higher order consciousness that I don't Reason or believe is the structure of consciousness. If I understand you right then you are subscribing to the higher order of consciousness. For example, Please explain how Such self consciousness (metacognition) is a requirement Of, subset of, Or a part of, or enabling of qualia. For A simple example, for me to "see" the color red I need not be self-aware that I am watching the color red. Any theory of consciousness that does not include and handle the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, is woefully incomplete at best and completely off base at worse.

but, I would argue, a tiger falls short of consciousness, at the level I am imagining it, in that it is not conscious of its own process of cognition. — jambaugh

Metacognition is an epiphenomenon of consciousness not it's foundation. Similar to how symbolic logic was supposed to solve Artificial intelligence, yet turned out to not be the foundation of human reasoning, so utterly failed when attempting to grounded into Real-world implementation. Again, you are projecting at the macro level of Human consciousness, Which has little to do with the micro building block structure of it.

It cannot ask the question "is it right that I hunt this prey?". — jambaugh

You certainly do not need metacognition to do that. Moreover, many animals, Including rodents close, have been demonstrated to possess Counterfactual reasoning, which is exactly that sort of (Self)reflective Thought of what I should've done instead to get a better result.

It is like the fact that given a mirror one sees a copy of an image of the world, but given two mirrors facing each other one sees an infinite regress of recursive images of the world. T — jambaugh

That is degenerate feedback, and chaotic. It is an interesting analogy which I have thought of yet do not yet see where it is useful or applies.

The existence of consciousness in an entity allows it to explore that infinite regress as far as it chooses (though always to a finite degree of actualization). This is how we distinguish a computer from a conscious entity. ... More to-the-point the conscious entity realizes that futility of this process ("infinity" is to the conscious entity a symbol taking the place of the absent boundary). — jambaugh

The degenerate Self images is not an infinite regress and are only Scaled facsimiles of the original So are not very useful for much of anything except some types of More efficient pattern recognition And template matching. You seem to be just narrating what any recursive iterative process would have to do to regulate itself from rehearsing to infinity, so, having a stop condition or observing divergence or lack of sufficient conjugal convergence, Are not particularly Unique Elements of consciousness. Any AI computer can be programmed to do what you say here.

The conscious entity can escape the infinite loop trap because the conscious entity can reflect on the task of striving itself. — jambaugh

Seems you are just doing a lot of arm waving on your feeling of self regulation when trying to solve the recursive problem. Even insects know when to give up when their efforts are not sufficiently productive enough. Very programmable you do not need any fancy kind of higher order theory of consciousness.

Okay, so with these reflections on the conscious entity, I argue that any objective model must necessarily fall short of describing the conscious entity because the conscious entity himself by (imperfect but adequate) definition must be able to transcend (again in this non-metaphysical meaning) the model. The conscious entity models itself in some limited by meaningful way. — jambaugh

I don't think you have substantiated your Claim as I exemplify above. Moreover, just because a process is highly sensitive to its initial Conditions and highly sensitive to perturbations of its variables, such As interactions with its environment, does not mean it is anything more than a chaotic state machine with self referential loops.

Bringing to down to a more concrete level, I see a strong analog to the modeling of quantum mechanical systems (my expertise) and modeling conscious entities. — jambaugh

I believe you are contradicting yourself here because on one hand you say consciousness cannot be Objectively modeled because It's exact state and time evolution depends on interactions with the environment, yet quantum mechanics Has similar dynamics and is is one of the best Objectively modeled And experimentally verified natural phenomenon in nature.

We lose the ability to describe the quantum system in terms of an objective state of all observable properties. Similarly with a conscious entity, to "measure" the state, to observe those variables which affect the conscious entity's behavior requires we interact in a meaningful way, specifically a way meaningful to that conscious entity and thus the entity is perturbed in a way invalidating other complementary/ non-compatible variables. — jambaugh

I don't believe you are thinking about that right in the context of consciousness. For some inconsistent reason, you are allowing quantum systems to exist in the superposition of all possible states and properties with certain probability distributions that are collapsed into one when observed or interacting with an external system, yet when it comes to consciousness you Require it to be a sequential iterative process that can only take one Recursive, Even if chaotic, path.

This means that the act of observing the conscious entity necessarily will affect that entity in ways that, for the very same reason it occurs for quantum systems, invalidates the objective description of said entity. — jambaugh

This is where I do not understand your line of reasoning Or even goals. An objective model does not have to define a Single deterministic State of a system in its configuration space. Nor does it, likewise, have to define a certain time evolution path from such a single deterministic state to a next. It is sufficient, for an objective model, to specify a boundary Within which a certain set of states exist Even if they are in flux, and various transition probabilities to Such a cloud of next states, Which transition probabilities may depend on any number of chaotic factors including self reflections or external perturbations. Like quantum mechanics, The fact that the end state is not 100% deterministic relative to its internal configuration space is not dispositive of the Observable Conscious process being objectively modeled.

I look forward to your refined thoughts and/Or clarifications to my above.

Cheers!

please point me to your post in "the Lounge". I do not know how to find that.

thanks, and doing well in the WFH model and avoiding indoor crowds, etc. be well.

even if it was true, in whatever sense, it still does not explain anything like "integrated information" or "quantum collapse" does not explain anything even if it was true. — Zelebg

If I thought you had the mental capacity I'd explain more conceptual layers of details, but you are clearly not fertile ground, so I move on...

this op is entirely nonsensical - it doesn't convey anything about the original argument, nor any insight into what might be wrong with the original argument. — Wayfarer

I 2nd that motion. Moreover, OP saying "We are virtual, people, I’m telling you." is a meaningless statement, IMHO. b/c everything mental is virtual. so, obvious "I" and qualia is virtual, like our consciousness. virtual does not mean something is not real, at least to someone, somewhere...

I see, just like in Star Trek. — Zelebg

I know your intent is to, again, be flippant. Yet, between your deaf ears, I bet you are completely unaware that all matter we experience in the universe is very likely a hologram. I'll recommend you start opening your mind with books like "the holographic universe the revolutionary theory of reality" written by michael talbot.
"Two of the world's most eminent thinkers believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram, quite literally a kind of image or construct created, at least in part, by the human mind. University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, an architect of our modern understanding of the brain, have developed a remarkable new way of looking at the universe."

Sci-fi only tries to popularize the science/theories. Good luck with your 'recursive algorithms' approach.... ;-)

Theories of atoms and dark matter were not developed from proof or experience but from translations of metaphysical ideas about the nature of things and such. — BrianW

I don't think that is correct. they always came from experimental observations which needed new theory to explain. mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science.

No, not less consciousness. Not even less intelligence in the ultimate sense. Just a lesser degree of expression of some attributes which seem to depend on the mental faculty for expression. — BrianW

OK, so, in your way of thinking, all humans have about the same level of intelligence (difference only in how much it is expressed) and consciousness which comparable in many ways to the intelligence and consciousness of a rock. I'm not sure how such ideas further science, but they do support a good spiritual feeling philosophy, which seems in synch with many ancient eastern philosophies.

Because human application of intelligence is vastly inferior to that manifest by nature (or reality). — BrianW

what working-in-progress definition of 'intelligence' are you using to make these kinds of statements, in re consciousness?

There is a great deal of intelligence manifest through the configuration we call a rock, e.g. as conceived in the activity of its atoms and molecules. — BrianW

so you are coming from the camp of "God's intelligent design" as explaining our universe and human condition?

also, you apparently are saying that you don't think that consciousness requires any level of agency. Have I got you right on that??

I mean intelligence cannot surpass the level of consciousness which manifests it. — BrianW

so, according to your views, a mentally retarded human (e.g., exhibiting less intelligent activity) has less consciousness than an average human (e.g., exhibiting much more intelligent activity than a retarded one) ?

Concerning viruses, they have consciousness in the sense of a state of conditioning which defines their identity and degree of intelligent activity. So, for me, it's not that viruses don't have consciousness, but that their level of activity is intermediate between that of configurations which self-propagate biologically and those which do not. — BrianW

why would biologically self-propagating be related to consciousness. Maybe you did not mean to say it that way.

why would degree of intelligent activity be determined and limited by the degree of 'consciousness'? I think it would be more productive if you increased the sophistication of your 'consciousness' model with at least one additional variable/factor that discriminates between, say the 'consciousness' of a rock, a virus, a bacteria, an AI computer, a worm, and a human. Clearly, "degree of intelligent activity" is not sufficient. e.g., a rock has zero "intelligent activity" which would mean by you it has zero 'consciousness', but then you say ' consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything', an apparent contradiction.

Sometimes, I simplify consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything. — BrianW

if everything is conscious then how does that help us define it, and why are our computers or electronics not conscious, not even the way a mouse is? Modern AI computers seem to at least as, if not more intelligent than a mouse, so why not at least as conscious under your definition/approach to modeling (levels of) consciousness?