Well, what is life? Although this could be placed in a science forum, I think it is equally valid here. After all, spirituality is all about life and death, so what is it? Another arguement for not placing it in a science forum is that scientists can't agree on the issue. In fact, can they come to the truth just using science?
For some heady discussion on the question, see the works of Robert Rosen. His view of life was neither materialistic nor vitalistic. I think it's fair to describe his view as synergetic and chaos-theoretic.
While science may not agree on some finer points, there are some central ideas about what something must be capable of in order to be considered "alive." Among these are: 1. Respire 2. Consume nutrients 3. Reproduce 4. Move 5. Respond to stimuli There are a few others, but those are the clearest ones I can remember off of the top of my head. If it fails to be capable of one of those things, then it isn't alive. Important note: this list of requirements applies to a species, not an individual. So no Mr/Ms Garrison logic of "your wife can't reproduce, so she's not alive" need be said.
The discussion is supposed to be about "what is life",,,, NOT 'considered alive'. In another forum, one member stated that 'life' is irreducible and indefinable. I find it odd, that with all of these science minded people on this forum, that a definition of "life" cannot be made manifest. As for the Theological side of that discussion, 'life' is exemplified in at least a couple of places in those texts. Of course, examples of 'life' are not exactly defining 'life' either. So, will this thread survive (stay alive) with the apparent need for 'definition' of "life"?
the same thing that is the life of mass (elements/molecule) Or try another perspective from the forum nut; when the scientific, religious and philosophical descriptions meet, the same EXACT answer will be exposed. same stuff solid comprehension that you are exposing I agree if using integrity. ie...... i know that by being scientific, anyone with any integrity and honesty will come to the same conclusion. So what is the life of all that exists? What is that stuff that a cross depicts and is naturally 'everywhere'? Ie..... no where in the universe is without it what do cell phones communicate with? what does the sun give us? what's an aura? what is released from fission/fussion? what helps people see that i am so (*)(*)(*)(*) prity?
yes ie... to me, seeking truth is 'science' Sorry about not just answering that one on the first pass
The oddest thing is the reason why there is no clear definition: There is no ultimate difference between living and nonliving things. There are no special "laws of physics" that apply to life but not to nonlife. There are a number of known almost-lifeforms that exist within the margins between life and nonlife. At best, there are synergetic patterns that apply within the field of life that do not directly apply to "normal" matter, but even then these are considered emergent properties, propertis and functions that arise only when a certain critical scale is attained, such as how the wetness of water is only manifest when enough water molecules clump together (for it is hard to imagine how and may be impossible to divine the wetness of water from the examination of a single water molecule). Also interesting is that this transitional area between life and nonlife is precisely what we would expect to see if abiogenesis is true. All the evidence suggests that lifeforms emerged from nonliving material.
This is a rather crude definition of life if you ask me. This definition only seeks to observe bodily functions. In fact, I might make the arguement that nonliving objects, such as stars, also do very similar things.
It is very similar to atheists trying to explain the difference between animals and humans. On the one hand, they identify the difference by eating other animals but not humans. But on the other hand, in their minds humans are just glorified animals. They must then conceed on some level that being more intelligent makes it "OK" to eat other animals. Then again, why not eat people who are of much lower intelligence than themselves? Also, why does intelligence make one superior? For example, Hannibal Lecter was a veeery intelligent human being. FFFTTT, FFFTTT, FTTTT. Yet I would value a loving person with Downs Syndrome more than he.
There is a significant difference, however to recognize that difference, one has to step down from the temporal and view things from the spiritual. "Life" being the subject, regardless of its form, would imply that all 'living things' have that commonality... "life". When looking at those 'living things' there are perhaps similarities in properties that exist across the various types of 'living things', yet 'life' itself still remains veiled in an apparent secret compartment not yet viewable by science or scientific approach. Then when segregating and isolating the various types of living things, we find other dissimilar capacities which also must be considered because those dissimilar functions might or might not have something to do with the function of 'life'. Outside the realm of science or beyond the current viewing capacity of science, the human living thing has a completely different property than all other living things. It is called 'soul' according to the Bible. Is the 'soul' life? No! Or perhaps! Another such difference is something called 'spirit' and 'spirit of life'. The Bible claims that God breathed into man the 'spirit of life' but the Bible makes no such distinction regarding the other living things on this planet. So, is the 'spirit of life' "life" in and of itself? No! The clause "spirit of life" indicates that there is the "life" and then there is the 'spirit of' that life. So, even according to the Bible, there is no distinct definition of 'life' as we consider 'life' in its' common usage. However, the Bible does give another meaning of the term "life". "I am the way, the truth, and the life". Worth pondering at any rate. Non-life, IMHO, would simply be the absence of 'life'.
As weird as life is, it is easier to demonstrate its existence than the existence of some sort of spiritual element. I coneded that life may not be grossly reducible to its material, but there is no need to posit that those processes escape the material realm.
Quite so. The failure is with semantics and not with the objects being named. Merely naming something as separate from some other thing does not create real separation if there is none. Naming itself causes problems. Carl Sagan spoke about of the history of science as the gradual dethronement of humanity. That's what I think this is about, the desire to maintain some sense of personal specialness. I think these arguments are over. The specialness of me, or me as an intelligence, or me as a human, or me as a lifeform is hard to defend when the galaxy I inhabit could explode right now and the next nearest galaxy wouldn't even notice for 2 1/2 million years.
This perception is merely an artifact of the insistence of modern "science" - which doesn't even understand life well enough to say whether viruses are alive - on dumbing everything down to mathematics. Small wonder, then, that there are people who, with perfectly straight faces, offer the spectacularly asinine opinion that a computer program can be considered a life form.
The importance of life I think is self awareness. (I think therfor I am) What makes one assortment of molecules different than another. a human as opposed to a rock or a flowing stream for example. Does a dog have "self awareness" ? At some point the matter, energy, or some combination of the two gained knowledge of itself. On a dark night when I look up into the stars I wonder whether the universe itself is one big interconnected brain that is aware of its existence. It is rather vein it seems to think that what we know of as life on Earth is the only configuration of matter and energy that has attained self awareness.
Crude, yes, but every search for information has to start somewhere. You may as well start with what everyone agrees on. The idea that nonliving objects do these things is a distortion of what these qualities are. If you throw a baseball, did the baseball make itself move? Similarly, stars move only at the whim of the physical laws that exist in our universe. A star does not propel itself. A star does not seek out nutrients to consume. Gravity causes atoms to collect until the pressure grows so great that fusion occurs, and that continued fusion continues for as long as other fusible atoms exist in proximity. A star does not reproduce. A star does not respond to stimuli. Contrast that to an insect, which does do all of those things within the constraints of physical laws, but not solely because of them.
Self-awareness does seem to be a property that can emerge from matter in a certain configuration. carl Sagan again. Since we are part of the universe, we are the univers's way of trying to understand itself. But I still think self-awareness is overrated. First, we are actively self-aware only a small fraction of our waking lives. Second, and this is my view, self-awareness is merely a defense mechanism that evolved as a consequence of our packetized existence.
No wonder I always thought he was an imbecile. Statements like this should be grounds for deportation from the US.
Knowing now that you realize the fact relating to the ease of demonstrating something corporeal and the difficulty of demonstrating something incorporeal, then why do you suppose that Atheists most often insist that the Theist prove his/her claim relating to spiritual matters? On the same token, I have asked many of the members of this forum Atheist and Theist to show me just one 'electron' or 'photon' (which by scientific standards is not a spiritual element, and none have been able to do that. The scientific standard suggests that such things exist but none have been isolated and shown. I don't mean showing the effect that something believed to be an electron or photon has on other forms of substance... but the actual item (photon or electron) itself. Much like the electron and or photon. Why should anyone believe that such entities exist when said entity(ies) cannot be shown to exist. We know that something causes electricity and that something causes light... show show me those causes.
I realized Carl had gone insane once I saw one of his shows. He was trying to explain some abstract concept using kids toys which were barn yard animals as props. It was most entertaining and I could not stop laughing for hours.
What exactly does this "dethronement" look like? What should we eat? Are there things we should not eat based upon respect of living beings or should humans eat each other just as readily as they would eat a cow or a bannana? In fact, if there is no "specialness" then why get bent out of shape if we "murder"?
Depends on how you assess your own safety. To put it as shortly as possible: You do not murder other people because if you did, you would constantly run the risk of having other people murdering you. Hence, we bend out of shape at murdering without just cause. It's called the law of reciprocity. Also known as the golden rule. Common to all social critters.
