It's... ALIVE!!

[The Nihilist]

You are maybe using the concepts "human" and "person" interchangably and they are not the same. There are humans who are not persons and who have never been persons. When a human is dead a person does not even exist for it to be broken. Also, being dead or alive does not have anything to do with personhood. There may be a human that is certainly 'alive' in every sense of the word yet has no person.

Good job missing my point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A complete definition of a concept like life is ultimately impossible because it is an idea and ideas can never really be defined. That being said, there are helpful scientific observations that all life holds in common. If something does not hold these it's probably not alive:

Made of cells
Gas exchange
Reproduces
Uses energy/takes in nutrients
Has DNA

There might be a few others.

Does that mean something is no longer classed as 'alive' if it loses the ability to reproduce? I'm thinking of sterile hinnys, and elderly human women.

What about things that have RNA instead of DNA? Indeed, what is so important about DNA? Or respiration? Or being composed of cells (just what is a 'cell', anyway?)?

 

[The Nihilist]

Are viruses alive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

 

[brightlights]

Does that mean something is no longer classed as 'alive' if it loses the ability to reproduce? I'm thinking of sterile hinnys, and elderly human women.

This is a good question. As far as elderly women are concerned, they are humans and humans are able to reproduce and have come about by means of reproduction. The sterile hinny example is an interesting challenge, though, and this would perhaps be a marginal exception to the rule. Generally, though, living things are able (or belong to a species that is able) to reproduce.

What about things that have RNA instead of DNA? Indeed, what is so important about DNA? Or respiration? Or being composed of cells (just what is a 'cell', anyway?)?

What's an example of something with RNA and not DNA? These things are not "important", but they are things that living beings have that non-living things do not have. Cells seem to be pretty easy to describe. They have organelles, structure, membranes, things like that...They are the simplest form of life.

 

[brightlights]

Are viruses alive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

This is a controversial question. I'm not sure. I would say no.

 

[brightlights]

Good job missing my point.

Sorry, what was the point I missed?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Mark,

thank you for the post.

We are not self-generating in the absolute sense of bootstrapping ourselves into existence. We are self-generating in the sense that, given conditions beneficial to our survival as living human entities, we are capable of continued development of our biological organizations, within certain limits. Think "growth".


eudaimonia,

Mark

there are other phenomena which seem capalb of continued development of its internal structure within limits. fire, for instance. in the link to Wikipedia i see that the whole idea of fire being alive has been and is being discussed amongst the professional types with some saying yes it is and many others saying no it is not.

i'm wondering if our understanding of things being alive has to become even more basic, down to the chemical level perhaps. carbon based life forms are alive whereas non carbon based life forms are not. this would take us out of the realm of the strictly biological though.

i think it's fascinating to see the different views that beings have expressed towards their basic conceptions of things being "alive".

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Brightlights,

thank you for the post.

Fire doesn't have DNA and isn't made of cells.

true, but in my basics for things to be alive i didn't include DNA nor cellular structure

i would certainly agree that if my definition did include those concepts then fire couldn't be alive in any sense of the term.

metta,

~v

 

[Gottservant]

You are asking for the best definition of life....

but is the best definition the best example (of life)?

 

[Eudaimonist]

there are other phenomena which seem capalb of continued development of its internal structure within limits. fire, for instance.

I would say that fire clearly lacks this ability. But I'll let the experts continue to debate the issue. If fire turns out to have this ability, I would have to concede that fire is alive, and I would feel a little guilty snuffing out my candles. (Good thing there is no reason to believe fire sentient, or else we'd have a real problem.)

i'm wondering if our understanding of things being alive has to become even more basic, down to the chemical level perhaps. carbon based life forms are alive whereas non carbon based life forms are not. this would take us out of the realm of the strictly biological though.

Who do you mean by "our"? I don't view carbon molecules as part of any proper definition of life. They are merely characteristic of terrestrial life.

I don't think that I would include atoms as a necessary part of my definition of life.

i think it's fascinating to see the different views that beings have expressed towards their basic conceptions of things being "alive".

Yes, certainly. I'm sure it's a discussion that human beings will be having for a long time to come.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[vajradhara]

You are asking for the best definition of life....

but is the best definition the best example (of life)?

Namaste Gottservant,

thank you for the post.

actually, i'm asking what are the most basic qualities that something needs to be considered alive, in your view.

people have give out good ideas on this thread which seem to be in line with what the professional philosophers are talking about though we all have our permutations so to speak.

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Mark,

thank you for the post.

I would say that fire clearly lacks this ability.

i would posit that it has this ability if only through chemical interaction but that is quite a significant aspect of life, as it were

But I'll let the experts continue to debate the issue. If fire turns out to have this ability, I would have to concede that fire is alive, and I would feel a little guilty snuffing out my candles. (Good thing there is no reason to believe fire sentient, or else we'd have a real problem.)

i wouldn't feel bad about the candles part but i do agree that fire does not seem sentient so its ceasing of arising wouldn't be terribly consequential.

Who do you mean by "our"? I don't view carbon molecules as part of any proper definition of life. They are merely characteristic of terrestrial life.

humans in general.

whilst i agree that they are characteristic of terriestial life that is, as far as i know, the only examples that we have to work with. whilst we cannot meaningfully say that life, throughout the universe, is primarily carbon based it does seems that we could make that claim for terriestial life.

metta,

~vajra

 

[Eudaimonist]

i would posit that it has this ability if only through chemical interaction but that is quite a significant aspect of life, as it were

Organization is more than just "chemical interaction", and I do not consider chemical interaction essential to the basic concept of life in any event.

If chemical interaction is what one focuses on in defining life, then it looks like any body of matter in the universe is alive. That seems to me to be enough of a reductio ad adsurdum to make me suspicious of this definition.

i wouldn't feel bad about the candles part but i do agree that fire does not seem sentient so its ceasing of arising wouldn't be terribly consequential.

So you won't be joining our "fire rights" protest?

If fire were alive, I suppose I would tell myself that it was no more consequential to snuff out a flame than to kill bacteria.

whilst i agree that they are characteristic of terriestial life that is, as far as i know, the only examples that we have to work with. whilst we cannot meaningfully say that life, throughout the universe, is primarily carbon based it does seems that we could make that claim for terriestial life.

Okay, but now we are talking about something else. The definition of life, in its most abstract and generic sense, is going to be different than the definition of "terrestrial life", because that is a different concept.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Mark,

thank you for the post.

Organization is more than just "chemical interaction", and I do not consider chemical interaction essential to the basic concept of life in any event.

whilst it may be more would you agree that chemical interaction is a sort of organization?

i'm fairly confident that my view includes chemical interaction it is, in my estimation, a consistently observed aspect in the simple forms of life e.g. bacteria and in more complex forms e.g. humans.

i would ask you if your view includes the chemical interaction part but not at the basic level?

If chemical interaction is what one focuses on in defining life, then it looks like any body of matter in the universe is alive. That seems to me to be enough of a reductio ad adsurdum to make me suspicious of this definition.

fair enough though this is but one aspect of my basic qualities and if something lacked the others then it would fail my test, so to speak.

my point here is simply that chemical interaction does seem to be a consistent point of internal organization, the humans digestive system is an internal organization through chemical reactions, imo. though i conceed that chemical interaction does not demonstrate said internal organization in and of itself.

So you won't be joining our "fire rights" protest?

If fire were alive, I suppose I would tell myself that it was no more consequential to snuff out a flame than to kill bacteria.

same.

Okay, but now we are talking about something else. The definition of life, in its most abstract and generic sense, is going to be different than the definition of "terrestrial life", because that is a different concept.

i see no meaningful way to discuss what may be life throughout the universe given that our only examples of life are bound to our terrestial experience.

i agree that the question is applicable to the whole universe though, as before, i'm unaware of any examples which we could use to start investigating.

metta,

~v

 

[Eudaimonist]

whilst it may be more would you agree that chemical interaction is a sort of organization?

Not really. I'd think that chemical interactions can be organized or disorganized.

Okay, just imagine digestion versus incineration. Sure, both involve breaking down a source of energy and releasing some of that energy. However, digestion involves transporting energy and molecules to where they may be used in constructive activities, such as keeping cells functioning. Incineration just breaks fuel down... and that's it.

i'm fairly confident that my view includes chemical interaction it is, in my estimation, a consistently observed aspect in the simple forms of life e.g. bacteria and in more complex forms e.g. humans.

While true, that doesn't make it essential to the concept of life. It simply makes it another detail.

And just consider what would happen if we were to discover a radically different form of life in the universe that did not involve chemical reactions.

i would ask you if your view includes the chemical interaction part but not at the basic level?

A life form may include chemical interaction, but not necessarily. I don't know in advance if the universe is capable of alternatives.

i see no meaningful way to discuss what may be life throughout the universe given that our only examples of life are bound to our terrestial experience.

I don't think that actually prevents us from cutting to essentials. I don't think we need to know this sort of thing in advance, though speculating might help, even if it is through imagination.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Something is alive in proportion to its fulfilling its potentialities -- doing what it should do, functioning as it should function.

 

[elcapitan]

Something is alive in proportion to its fulfilling its potentialities -- doing what it should do, functioning as it should function.

I think that definition is oversimplified and inadequate. By your definition, my computer is alive.

Even if I assume you are right, how do you know what the function of something natural is?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste received,

thank you for the post.

can you give me an example of what you are indicating? from what i can tell elcapitan would be right in that my car or computer would be alive.

metta,

~v

 

[Received]

I'm not going to defend this idea too heavily; I'm clearly botching an idea from someone I read. I'm speaking rather freely here, so help me figure this out:

A car or computer is, to speak naively, programmed, and they work only by virtue of us. In a tricky sense, they thus are extensions of our selves and not independent organisms; they work or function only at our preference -- they function as we function them to function; in reality we are functioning through them. If that doesn't work (and I'm not sure it does), the words "alive" and "dead" are presumably biological in origin, and can be used as metaphors for spiritual life, and even cars or computers (a car can metaphorically be alive). Maybe this is a solution.

Anyways, how to determine what something's function is. That's a devilishly simple-looking question, and I know it wasn't meant to be that way. Observation. That's how you find out. You interpret a function from an observation of the organism. "It is functioning," that is, it's alive; "it isn't functioning," that is, it's dead. But say a person is shot in the head. His dead corpse twitches; there is still function, but is he alive? Everyone would say no. Because being alive means implementing consciousness with biological factors. Interestingly, even though the person is dead, the firing neurons are still very much alive. They're doing what they do. They're functioning.

Life as a psychological or spiritual metaphor gets a little trickier. Here function isn't either/or, but narrower. Human beings are psychologically alive in accordance with your own psychological interpretation of what it means to function normally. Logotherapists would say that a person is alive in proportion to his striving for meaning; Freud would say a person is alive in proportion to his libidinal discharges. And so on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A car or computer is, to speak naively, programmed, and they work only by virtue of us. In a tricky sense, they thus are extensions of our selves and not independent organisms; they work or function only at our preference -- they function as we function them to function; in reality we are functioning through them.

I think you are right on target here. This would be an example of a lack of what I'm calling self-generated action. Cars and computers work only by virtue of human life activities, and so they are extensions of our lives, not life forms unto themselves. They do not have self-generated functioning, but human-generated functioning.

This is not to say that we will never one day invent a lifeform through our technology, but it would have to be carefully designed to exist independently of our lives, and not as mere extensions of our lives.


eudaimonia,

Mark