On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:52:25 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
 wrote:

>
>"Anon."  wrote:
> 
>> > G:-
>> > Yes, I do realise this.  I, however, do not believe Darwin or many
>> > others since have given a _complete_ definition of organism as a
>> > physical object.  Thom even tried, but in many respects still failed.
>
>> > JE:-
>> > The organism concept has never been formalised.
>> > Like the number "1" within mathematics, the organism
>> > assumption is just taken for granted as "obvious",
>> > it is a very basic inductive assumption. Without
>> > it, a testable science of biology could not exist.
>
>> BOH:-
>> I thought someone had worked out how to define 1 (and all the other 
>> integers).  I only mention this because, if memory serves, he defined 
>> the numbers in terms of nested (empty) sets.
>
>JE:-
>AFAIK, the number 1 is the only number 
>that is common to all counting systems,
>i.e. the concept cannot be deleted and
>a counting system, remain. Likewise,
>the organism concept is the only 
>concept that is common to all biological 
>systems such that if it is deleted, the
>science of biology just ceases to exist.
>
>It is the organism, within evolutionary theory,
>that produces the 1st testable set intersection 
>that exists  within nature between independent, 
>absolute sets of fitness. Selection operating at
>just this one fitness interface, alone, causes 
>evolution  via the Darwinian process of natural 
>selection.
>
My courses in Foundations of Mathematics date back over 40 years but I
seem to recall Whitehead and Russell being associated with the notion
of "one" being the cardinality of the set which consists solely of the
empty set. You then build up the rest of the integers from there.

Philosophers can become intensely concerned with the definition of an
individual, but biologists don't bother because of the numerous
instances of organisms that defy any specific definition.  There are
composite or colonial organisms made of very different kinds of
components like the Portuguese Man O'War (Physalia) or, even worse,
lichens.  There are many plants and fungi that can grow asexually
(cloning) to cover large areas with multiple reproductive organs.  If
the large piece breaks apart into smaller pieces, each is a separate
organism.  Some of these "deliberately" shed smaller organisms to
reproduce, others can be artificially divided into separate
"organisms".  Slime molds, both plasmodial (Physarum) and cellular
(Dictyostelium) live part of their lives as separate cells and part as
a single multicellular organism. Some social insects like bees form
colonies of many individuals but function as a single individual when
it comes to reproduction.  

Contrary to John Holden's claim, the science of biology continues very
happily, thank you, without worrying about just what exactly an
individual is.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/20/03 8:39:51 PM