I find it difficult to get excited about Paul Davies' 'Demon in the Machine' (this title seems a slight mutation of the traditional Ghost in the Machine idea) book attempt to apply the laws of Physics to an understanding of life (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies). His simple analogy of waving a 'life detector' over a variety of inanimate, animate, semi-animate and recently animate objects doesn't strike me as especially meaningful (even if a 'life detector' responding to a radiated aspect of life existed). Surely, a genetic code and the ability to propagate copies of that code must lie at the root of life? Remember that life can exist in forms where life per se is undetectable for extended periods as in the case of a bacterial endospore. So life is defined by what it might do rather than by what it is. Could the Davies thesis be yet another iteration of the intelligent design attack on NeoDarwinism?
This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Sunday, 27 January 2019
Physick and Life?
I find it difficult to get excited about Paul Davies' 'Demon in the Machine' (this title seems a slight mutation of the traditional Ghost in the Machine idea) book attempt to apply the laws of Physics to an understanding of life (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies). His simple analogy of waving a 'life detector' over a variety of inanimate, animate, semi-animate and recently animate objects doesn't strike me as especially meaningful (even if a 'life detector' responding to a radiated aspect of life existed). Surely, a genetic code and the ability to propagate copies of that code must lie at the root of life? Remember that life can exist in forms where life per se is undetectable for extended periods as in the case of a bacterial endospore. So life is defined by what it might do rather than by what it is. Could the Davies thesis be yet another iteration of the intelligent design attack on NeoDarwinism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Flowers of Oahu 64. Wikstoemia uva-ursi or Akia
The bark, roots and leaves of this plant release a narcotic that was used to stun fish.
-
It should hardly be called a study. A Which comparison looked at levels of nitrogen dioxide and small particulates (PM 2.5s) in 5 Londo...
-
Europe has a city congestion problem. In 2023, London was the most gridlocked location, closely followed by Paris and Dublin. In that year...
-
It's necessary, where possible, to replace diesel and petrol-fueled vehicles by electrical equivalents. Electric vehicles (EVs) don...
No comments:
Post a Comment