The definition of life

[CharonZ]

But this can be said of all biological classifications, can’t it?

Yes indeed. I was only responding to the OP but my comment is not actually limited to that alone. Other prominent examples include the species concept, for instance. However, there are certain classifications that are based on certain intrinsic features that do make more sense.

 

[Orleander]

I'd like all those who are interested in defining life to have at it.

What is life? What defines something as live or not live?

That's a hard one for me. Especially when it comes to abortions. Is a 10 week old fetus alive? Its living tissue, but its not alive. I guess for it to be alive, it has to be able to survive apart from its mother. It has to be able to survive on its own mostly.

 

[Yorda]

I guess for it to be alive, it has to be able to survive apart from its mother. It has to be able to survive on its own mostly.

1 year old children can't survive alone, but they're still alive.

the truth is that there is no magical boundary where non-life suddenly becomes alive. there are things that are alive and things that are less alive, but there are no things that would be entirely dead, not even rocks, because they are also part of life.

 

[Enmos]

That's a hard one for me. Especially when it comes to abortions. Is a 10 week old fetus alive? Its living tissue, but its not alive. I guess for it to be alive, it has to be able to survive apart from its mother. It has to be able to survive on its own mostly.

Parasites are very much alive.

 

[Orleander]

1 year old children can't survive alone, but they're still alive. ....

really? You really didn't understand what I was talking about. You don't see a difference between a weeks old fetus and a 2 yr old? Lord love a duck.

Fine, NOTHING is alive if someone helps keep it alive. Patients having surgery aren't alive, no child is ever alive, pets aren't alive, people in nursing homes aren't alive, ...did I forget anyone?

 

[Orleander]

Parasites are very much alive.

no, its living tissue, but its not alive.

 

[Enmos]

no, its living tissue, but its not alive.

No, parasites are living creatures. They just can't survive without their host.

 

[Vkothii]

I'd say a closer definition, is viruses are alive when they interact with things that are.
Otherwise they have a potential for what we usually call "living", but they don't respire, the cell does, and creates more potential - viruses are non-linear.

 

[Simon Anders]

No, parasites are living creatures. They just can't survive without their host.

Just like us.

 

[Randwolf]

Just like us.

Exactly. No living organism can survive apart from its proper environment, or 'host'. Just because a creature can not continue to exist outside of certain limited contextual parameters doesn't negate the definition of 'alive'.

What is it with all these threads? Or more appropriately, with a lot of the posts in response to these threads? Do we all really have such fundamental differences over what 'living' is? Apparently so...

I thought such disparity in opinion was much narrower in scope - say as to viruses and prokaryotes. I mean, trees, FFS?

This might be the best thread yet on the subject, in that it asks the basic question 'what is life', as opposed to 'are xxx alive?' I could offer the basic dictionary definition, but apparently something else is going on here.

Does the relevant education differ this radically from country to country? I live in the US, I guess I just assumed that the definition of 'alive' was more universal than it appears to be here on SF.

Or, more likely, maybe I have just completely lost my mind... :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

Just like us.

Exactly. No living organism can survive apart from its proper environment, or 'host'. Just because a creature can not continue to exist outside of certain limited contextual parameters doesn't negate the definition of 'alive'.

I agree that organisms can't do without their environments (obviously), but I'm not sure whether or not environments can seen as hosts.. they are not entities.

What is it with all these threads? Or more appropriately, with a lot of the posts in response to these threads? Do we all really have such fundamental differences over what 'living' is? Apparently so...

I thought such disparity in opinion was much narrower in scope - say as to viruses and prokaryotes. I mean, trees, FFS?

This might be the best thread yet on the subject, in that it asks the basic question 'what is life', as opposed to 'are xxx alive?' I could offer the basic dictionary definition, but apparently something else is going on here.

Correct, something disturbing is going on..

Does the relevant education differ this radically from country to country? I live in the US, I guess I just assumed that the definition of 'alive' was more universal than it appears to be here on SF.

Or, more likely, maybe I have just completely lost my mind... :shrug:

Can you expand on what you mean by a more universal definition of "alive" ?

 

[Simon Anders]

I agree that organisms can't do without their environments (obviously), but I'm not sure whether or not environments can seen as hosts.. they are not entities.

Well, they are certainly entities. Look that one up. It merely means they have existence. But I think you mean they are not single living organisms. But you can probably guess where I come down on that one.

 

[Randwolf]

I agree that organisms can't do without their environments (obviously), but I'm not sure whether or not environments can seen as hosts.. they are not entities.

I really wasn't trying to imply that environments are 'entities' in the way that I think you interpreted it. I was merely saying that living things need a certain set of external conditions in order to continue living. 'Host' is more of a euphemism for me.

Correct, something disturbing is going on..

Yes, but what? This is the main point of my post. Either I have disconnected from reality, or some other people have definitely, totally and completely lost it. WTF?

Can you expand on what you mean by a more universal definition of "alive" ?

If you are referring to my use of the word 'universal', there is no hidden or obscure meaning intended. I simply meant to say 'consensus' or generally accepted, nothing metaphysical. I was only referring to what I thought was common knowledge. You know, living creatures are those that metabolize, react to stimuli, etc.

 

[Enmos]

Well, they are certainly entities. Look that one up. It merely means they have existence. But I think you mean they are not single living organisms. But you can probably guess where I come down on that one.

Hm yes, I meant it in that way. I know where you're coming from

 

[Enmos]

I really wasn't trying to imply that environments are 'entities' in the way that I think you interpreted it. I was merely saying that living things need a certain set of external conditions in order to continue living. 'Host' is more of a euphemism for me.

Well, I kind of lumped that part of your post together with Simons post because you were agreeing with him. I know what Simons point of view is, so..

Yes, but what? This is the main point of my post. Either I have disconnected from reality, or some other people have definitely, totally and completely lost it. WTF?

It's the other people..
I'm not entirely sure what is happening here, but it certainly has to do with alienation from nature.
I think Biology should be mandatory in highschool, like English and Math..

If you are referring to my use of the word 'universal', there is no hidden or obscure meaning intended. I simply meant to say 'consensus' or generally accepted, nothing metaphysical. I was only referring to what I thought was common knowledge. You know, living creatures are those that metabolize, react to stimuli, etc.

Ah ok..
Yea.. that common knowledge doesn't seem so common nowadays.. it's something we should worry about in my opinion.

 

[Randwolf]

I think Biology should be mandatory in highschool, like English and Math...

OMG. You mean that it's not. It was when I was in high school. OK, I have my answer now.

 

[Enmos]

OMG. You mean that it's not. It was when I was in high school. OK, I have my answer now.

No, it's not at all.. it's sad really.
What is more important than at least a basic understanding of our environment and the other life we share it with ?