What Is Life?

[TruthSeeker]

So... why are we alive and a rock is not? I don't get it?

Maybe the rock is also alive. Just a different form of life. Why not?

[scameter]

Realization, as well as sentience accordingly, gives us the ability to call ourselves alive, as well as animals, as they are animated. A rock does not move, and thus isn't seen as alive. Nor does it reproduce, another aspect of live things. This is of course the more scientific qualification; there are myriad more spiritual ones.

[rich]

It would be a horrible fate to turn into a rock or stone, being unable to express your pain or suffering, and just be a' thoughtful' something lying there.
A fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

[TruthSeeker]

Realization, as well as sentience accordingly, gives us the ability to call ourselves alive, as well as animals, as they are animated. A rock does not move, and thus isn't seen as alive. Nor does it reproduce, another aspect of live things. This is of course the more scientific qualification; there are myriad more spiritual ones.
I will have to disagree. A rock still moves and still "reproduces" if you look at it for long enough. It takes millions of years, but it happens. If 100,000 years passed to you like a second, a rock would seem to be "alive". In fact, you would probably classify it as "alive"... <_<

[TruthSeeker]

It would be a horrible fate to turn into a rock or stone, being unable to express your pain or suffering, and just be a' thoughtful' something lying there.
A fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
Does life always imply consciousness?

[scameter]

I disagree truthseeker. A rock may naturally grow, or it may grow and then part of it may seperate from it, but that isn't reproduction. I mean organic reproduction. And another part of my qualification of alive I think should be that the thing being questioned must be organic.

[TruthSeeker]

What is the difference, really? For an alien, a rock can be as alive as us! <_<

[scameter]

You asked the question. It obviously makes a difference to you.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, you are made of the same stuff rocks are made, ya know? And both move. And both molecules interact with external molecules. So...... what's the difference?

[scameter]

I may be from the same thing, but I am of a different substance. And, rocks can be moved, but they do not move on their own.

[TruthSeeker]

Your molecules are different, but for an outside observer you both behave in very similar ways.

[Kether]

A living thing is commonly defined as a system that attempts to reduce entropy within itself at the expense of its environment: it tries to replicate, and to achieve this uses energy in a way that goes against the flow of its surroundings.

[scameter]

I agree with Kether. A rock does not do this. It is composed of similar yet different things, and may exist, which is the only similarity between what it does and what I do that I can see, but because of what Kether said, a rock is not alive.

[TruthSeeker]

Everything is composed of the dust of the stars. So just because we are conscious we happen to be "alive"?

What about entropy? Isn't that universal? Order is just an illusion. We "see" order because we classify everything. Even a galaxy has entropy- so why isn't the galaxy alive?

There are two facts that tell me the universe might be "alive":
1) The cells in our bodies don't know they make up a human being- that is an alive entity
2) I forgot, cause I'm too stoned... :D

Let me get back ta ya later... :knockout:

[scameter]

Everything is composed of the dust of the stars. So just because we are conscious we happen to be "alive"?

Everything? Even particles and energy and space and things not from the dust of stars? :P I never said consciousness certifies life; nor would I. I think consciousness makes us human, but it isn't what makes us alive.

We "see" order because we classify everything. Even a galaxy has entropy- so why isn't the galaxy alive?

"Galaxy" is relative, as is "classify", "everything", and "see". Sorry, I'm not too fond of relativity in this extreme sense. I think many things that are posed by the individual and that are received and interpreted by the individually subjectively are individually relative, but I do not think *everything* is relative.

[TruthSeeker]

Everything? Even particles and energy and space and things not from the dust of stars? I never said consciousness certifies life; nor would I. I think consciousness makes us human, but it isn't what makes us alive.
So what does?

"Galaxy" is relative, as is "classify", "everything", and "see". Sorry, I'm not too fond of relativity in this extreme sense. I think many things that are posed by the individual and that are received and interpreted by the individually subjectively are individually relative, but I do not think *everything* is relative.
What is not relative then, in your opinion? ;)

[scameter]

So what does?

"A living thing is commonly defined as a system that attempts to reduce entropy within itself at the expense of its environment: it tries to replicate, and to achieve this uses energy in a way that goes against the flow of its surroundings."

What is not relative then, in your opinion?

Anything that isn't relative. :D

[Gesiwuj]

I beleive that life is conscience of being alive. The MRS NERG theory of life (Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Nutrition, Excretion, Repriduction and Growth) could be replicated in a robot for instance, but would that make it alive? A robot could be made that respires by burning sugar and can react with objects and be able to create new robots... Although does this mean a tree isn't alive. As far as we know, a tree has no conscience and doesn't know it's alive, yet that is scientifically classed as alive. An amoeba may not be conscious of itself, yet that is alive. Maybe something that is alive has a "soul" - although how do we know it has a soul? In medeival England, animals were tortured frequently by Christians as it was told that they had no soul.

The dictionary, saying
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. really doesn't help either!

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: A living thing is commonly defined as a system that attempts to reduce entropy within itself at the expense of its environment: it tries to replicate, and to achieve this uses energy in a way that goes against the flow of its surroundings.

This sounds like a good general definition, because entropy reduction is requisite for physical complexity and physical complexity seems to be requisite for life. There is one hitch, though. This definition would apply to all entropy reducing entities including non-organisms. For example, our planet is an entropy exporting system, since it reradiates solar energy at a greater level of entropy than it absorbes it. Could we call earth to be alive in the same sense than an animal is alive? There are other examples of entropy exporting systems, ecosystems or chemical compounds for example, which are non-organisms.

Gesiwuj: The MRS NERG theory of life (Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Nutrition, Excretion, Repriduction and Growth) could be replicated in a robot for instance, but would that make it alive?

I think a machine which accomplishes all of these feats would seem pretty much alive to us, so yes, I guess we could call it "life". These features go well beyond what we observe in contemporary "artificial life" studies, i.e. cellular automata, evolutionary and genetic algorithms and the like. Nevertheless, I think MRS NERG is a slightly flawed set of criteria for the definition of biological life itself. A better set of criteria, although similar, is: metabolism, response to stimuli, reproduction, growth, organisation, adaptation.

This set omits movement and respiration (since we know organisms which don't have these features); it replaces several criteria with more general ones, such as nutrition/excretion = metabolism, and it adds adaptation and organisation which are likewise general features of life.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Thomas-- could we call earth to be alive in the same sense that an animal is alive?

-- Thomas, Gaia Theory holds that Earth is a single living system that self-regulates atmospheric conditions, ocean salinity, global temperature, etc.... in an automatic way. Just as the body self-regulates body temperature, blood salinity, circulation, breathing, & other automatic systems.

[scameter]

I disagree Thomas; I do not think a robot could be considered alive. It may fit those requirements, but that is a theory. And an incorrect one to me. I think life requires being organic, being capable of individual volition, as well as the requirements in the theory; not apart from or lesser than. A robot's life, mind and abilities are dictated by us; we program it, usually to do particular tasks, and can deactivate and subsequently reactivate it at will. You can not do this with any other life form, nor is any other life form's life dictated entirely by us; it has it's own individuality, it's own free volitionary capability, and we are not it's constant masters, nor it's programmers; to imply that our programming would mimic nature's would be to imply that nature is conscious, and creates things for specific purposes within it, which I disagree with. I think aspects of nature interact well with each other because they have adapted to do so, out of necessity; excluding us. I also think that the glory of nature is in three things: the amazing abilities of organic matter, far superior to metallic or inorganic matter; it's random programming, however discrete and deliberate in it's approach to life survival; and life's interaction with the programming throughout time, i.e. evolution, in order to effect the increased efficiency of the programming, and indeed of nature. Again, I believe we are excluded partially from this; mainly because we are much more mind-centered than any other animal, as Carl Sagan also claimed.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"could we call earth to be alive in the same sense that an animal is alive?"

Yes, for example, plants tree's, and the O zone layer B)

"I do not think a robot could be considered alive"

I disagree, we can't limit being 'living' as the consumption of air and bleeding of blood. A robot is just a live as any naturly born human being. Only with a few miner differance. Just like out brains it depends on electrical response. It depends on fluids (oil) and it need caring for. So to disimiss it as not living is careless :boxing:

[scameter]

I disagree, for the reasons I stated in my original disagreement.

[sonrisa]

Thomas-- could we call earth to be alive in the same sense that an animal is alive?

Buzz-- Yes, for example, plant's trees, and the O zone layer B)

-- yes, yes, this is part of Gaia Theory, the trees, especially as a rainforest, are like the Earth lungs. The Ozone Layer, & the atmosphere in general, is like the Earth's skin.

[scameter]

And every single thing in nature plays a part in nature's operation; every bug, every tree, every bear, every fish, every gust of wind, every liter of river, every square mile of ocean; all play a part, and indeed are necessary, for the earth's continuation in stability as it is right now. And, we are ruining this stability, out of the interests of power, personal prosperity and money.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"we are ruining this stability, out of the interests of power, personal prosperity and money"

Exactly...man is ruining it for his own personal gain and mocks those to whom tries to perserve what little is left un touched and spoiled by human hand B)

[scameter]

True. I just wonder where we do fit in; scientists would say anywhere, religious and environmentalists would say no where natural... Where do we belong?

[buzzlightyear1982]

We fit in as animals...humans after all are mamals...were just anthor speices of animal B)

[scameter]

That is indeed the scientific logic. And if one is to follow that through, everything we do is perfectly fine, including what we do to nature; it is perfectly acceptable. And, since most scientists, as well as many modern philosophers, would not accept that we all have a conscience, nothing we do is wrong including murder, theft and harm to nature; it is only those who have strength fighting against others with it to inflict their will.

[rich]

We do not know, if celestial bodies, ie: Suns, Planets, Comets, and Moons are actually living beings, taking a completely different form of being a being than the type which inhabit the planet earth. We do not know how the relief of pressure, effects the inner core of the body which supports so much other life, is emotionally effected. Or is such a concept, strictly from an overactive imagination ?