Reply to Jerry Smith - ANIMUS

[Patty]

Hi Jerry,

You had asked me about this:

We can go with the etymological definition you gave of life in your earlier post, which brings up more questions (like: what is ANIMUS), and which excludes some things that I think are living, like mushrooms, plankton, and bacteria. It also seems to exclude viruses, but I'm not sure those are living things by any good working definition of life..

Bacteria are animals.

Viruses are, indeed, animals. Anything that reproduces is a living thing, either animal or vegetable. Viruses can move of their own volition; therefore, they are classified as animals.

Mushrooms are plants. (Plants are vegetables)

Plankton are passively or drifting organisms in a body of water. That's all the dictionary says. I believe that they are plants.

An organism is any form of animal or plant life.

In this world, as man sees things, there are three classifications of things:
animal, vegetable or mineral.

Anything that reproduces has life.
Rocks don't reproduce.
Water doesn't reproduce.

Vegetables reproduce.
Animals reproduce.

Vegetables cannot move of their own volition.

Animals can move of their own volition.

The word "animal" comes from the Latin "anima" which is the feminine for "soul"(principle of life) or "breath of life", and it's masculine form is "animus" which means "intellect", "mind", "understanding", "thought", "reason". (Animus is principle of thought and feelings)

Vegetable comes from the Latin "vegetabilis" meaning "able to live and grow", which comes from the Latin "vegetus -a -um" which means "vigorous" .

Hope this helps to answer the question on ANIMUS, too.


Patty

 

[Jerry Smith]

Hi Patty. Thanks for clarifying your original definitions.

Just for the sake of discussion, I want to point out that biologists classify organisms somewhat differently from what you do here. I understand that you are working from your own taxonimical system, but it is worth pointing out some differences between yours and the ones used by scientists:

Taxonomists usually do not include fungi with plants or bacteria with animals.

Sponges cannot move of their own volition. Taxonomists classify them as animals - will you classify them as plants?

Viruses cannot move of their own volition (and require use of the cellular machinery of other organisms for metabolism, respiration and reproduction). Will you then re-classify them as plants or as non-living?

Venus fly-traps are not motile, strictly speaking, but move their specialized leaves "of their own volition"- are they animals, then, or do they remain plants?

Anything that reproduces has life.

That is a very broad definition. But it is good that you have defined life according to an observable trait. Are we to carry forward your proof based on this definition? Before you begin, let me ask you: a chemical self-replicator (such as a protein that can make copies of itself) - is that alive? It reproduces, so I assume that it is alive by your definition, but I want to be sure before we go on to the next point...

Thanks, Jerry

 

[AtheistArchon]

- I once met a person who was convinced that crystals were a primitive form of life.  They grow and reproduce too, in a way. 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- I once met a person who was convinced that crystals were a primitive form of life.  They grow and reproduce too, in a way. 

I can write a computer program that can grow and reproduce.  What about that?  It can also "learn."

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Fungi are NOT plants

Some unicellular plants can move using flagella

Fire reproduces (and has a simple "metabolism") so is it alive?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I have seen "life" as being defined by the following 5 criteria

1. Growth and replication
2. Energy transfer (metabolism)
3. Stimulus response (irritability)
4. Self preservation
5. Not in thermal equalibrium with its environment

You could probably find many chemical systems which have all or most of these characteristics yet nobody would say "gee that's alive".