What is life? What does it mean to be living?

[Enmos]

ants are highly ineffective

Wtf ?

 

[draqon]

Wtf ?

their lifespan is much shorter. they do not have capacity to understand higher form of organization than their own local realm. They die in much greater numbers % then humans do. In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches. Environment controls them, not the other way around.


Meanwhile we are already aproaching a point were we are the controllers of our own environment...to the point that we can live outside of the possible original supporting life habitat, Earth. We can now live in space, on International Space Station.

 

[Enmos]

their lifespan is much shorter. they do not have capacity to understand higher form of organization than their own local realm. They die in much greater numbers % then humans do. In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches.

You don't know much about ants do you ?
Ants are highly effective and efficient.
And they are far better suited to their environment than humans are.

 

[draqon]

You don't know much about ants do you ?
Ants are highly effective and efficient.
And they are far better suited to their environment than humans are.

you dont know what LIFE really is. do you? or perhaps you chose to not understand it.

 

[Enmos]

you dont know what LIFE really is. do you? or perhaps you chose to not understand it.

I don't know what the fuck you mean when you say it. And I don't think you do either..

 

[Killjoy]

Enmos...you are wrong, ants are highly ineffective and they do not have high conceptualization of life, as high as we do. Only dolphins and chimps/gorillas come close to us in this sense. Life is a book in essence...We have read many more pages then ants have.

If they're highly ineffective, then why aren't they all dead ?

"High conceptualizations" are the same sort of delusion that the notion that devising said phrase confers a greater understanding of anything.

Those we describe as "inferior creatures" live free of the need to cobble up some high & mighty sounding nonsense to be able to point to and say - "this proves I am alive".

This is what makes them better than us, regardless of the fact that we view ourselves as "masters of all we survey".

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

life is life. life is this existence that we live in. life is also consciousness, because everything in existence has consciousness.

Please give us your definition of "consciousness."

This is a science website so all discussions are presumed to be of a scientific nature unless specifically identified otherwise, in which case they should be posted in Arts, Philosophy, etc., to avoid misunderstanding.

So far your arguments are far more philosophical--or even downright metaphysical--than they are scientific, in which case you're not adding to the discussion, which is taking a scientific direction.

lifeforms should be defined according to how conscious they are. humans are the most conscious, then the animals, then the plants, and matter is the least conscious.

Once again you are not using your words scientifically. How can you possibly say that plants have consciousness since they don't have neurons, or anything analogous to neurons, with which to exercise cognition?

scientists go so far as to say that matter has no consciousness, that it is entirely dead. in everyday language, it may be convinient to say that "matter" is dead, but we shouldn't mistake such definitions to necessarily be reality.

This is not everyday language, it is scientific language. The question in the OP was about the definition of life and on a science website that means a scientific definition. If you wish to debate metaphysics you're derailing the discussion away from science.

it's impossible that there could be actual non-living matter, because if there was, then everything would be non-living, because everything is made of that non-living matter.

You're missing the point that life is organization, which is greater than the sum of the parts that contribute to that organization. It's the way a specific piece of matter is put together and the way that organization makes it function, that qualifies it as life. Not the atoms themselves.

life is also movement, that's why when we see something that moves around a lot, we say that it seems very alive, or that it has "spirit". life is movement because things can't start to move without consciousness. and also... without movement, vibration, there would be no existence.

The planets move. The stars move. Photons move. None of those things are alive by even the most generous defintion of the word. Please try to stay on topic or all you're doing is trolling, rather than helping us move this discussion forward. Please remember that this is SCI Forums. There are plenty of other places to have iconoclastic discussions about the limitations of conventional thinking. Including, as I mentioned, a couple of the subforums on this website.

If it moves on its own without any outside influences then I would say it is alive.

One criterion in every definition of life is "responding to external stimuli." It can be argued that living things move in response to outside influences, especially the more primitive lifeforms that are largely ruled by reflex. So I don't think your definition is very apt.

 

[Killjoy]

Meanwhile we are already aproaching a point were we are the controllers of our own environment...to the point that we can live outside of the possible original supporting life habitat, Earth. We can now live in space, on International Space Station.

Tell those people around the world whose homes, towns, cities, etc were destroyed by volcano, tsunami, earthquake, tornado, and hurricane that we are the controllers of our own environment .

Another delusion.

Hell, one good sized rock drops out of space onto Ye Olde Mud-Ball, and it's pretty much over for the Rebel Apes - Space Station & all !

In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches. Environment controls them, not the other way around.

Think about the fact that the presence of human cities in their environment overturned all they previously experienced by radically altering the ecosystem where cities exist....

They just started living in our houses, and feasting on the merest scraps we consider too insignificant to even notice most of the time.

Nice adaptation if you ask me.

 

[Norsefire]

I think any entity which is self-aware and concious of it's being and surroundings, is alive.

Otherwise it is little more than a chemical reaction, and has little worth.

 

[Killjoy]

`
"Self-awareness" is little more than a chemical reaction.

An unsavory side-effect appears to be making a mountain of that molehill.

 

[Enmos]

I think any entity which is self-aware and concious of it's being and surroundings, is alive.

Otherwise it is little more than a chemical reaction, and has little worth.

People that think like this make me sick.

 

[Simon Anders]

`
"Self-awareness" is little more than a chemical reaction.

An unsavory side-effect appears to be making a mountain of that molehill.

says who? and who thinks it's unsavory? a side-effect thinks it's unsavory? why should other side effects listen? why are the apparantly humble so reader to see themselves as teachers?

 

[Balerion]

One feels life and is alive more then others

How do you know?

 

[Killjoy]

says who? and who thinks it's unsavory? a side-effect thinks it's unsavory? why should other side effects listen?

I meant that a side-effect of "self-awareness" is overestimating its significance, not that any specific person who holds said belief IS a side-effect of anything.

I consider this overestimation unsavory because it seems to me to be that which gives rise to the notion that humanity is somehow the result
of "supernatural" intent to create a life form which is superior to all others on Earth.

why are the apparantly humble so reader to see themselves as teachers?

This sounds like some sort of syntax error.

Who is teaching what to whom ?

 

[Norsefire]

People that think like this make me sick.

That think like what? It's true. Without experience, consiousness, and self awareness, we humans would hardly be worth anything.

Without thought and wonder, an organism isn't anything more than a set of rules. Flies, for instance, are worthless. They can't think or know, they can't experience, they only do what their body tells them and then die.


Conciousness is what makes Human life valuable.

 

[Enmos]

That think like what? It's true. Without experience, consiousness, and self awareness, we humans would hardly be worth anything.

Without thought and wonder, an organism isn't anything more than a set of rules. Flies, for instance, are worthless. They can't think or know, they can't experience, they only do what their body tells them and then die.


Conciousness is what makes Human life valuable.

Think again pal. No insects means no humans.

 

[Norsefire]

Think again pal. No insects means no humans.

Yes, I realize their importance but they are important only as functions of the ecosystem. They aren't entities. Their lives have no value; what they do, does, but their life as in, their being, doesn't.

They are little more than chemical reactions, and it is these reactions and actions that are important. As for them, they really aren't any more valuable than a rock.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, I realize their importance but they are important only as functions of the ecosystem.

Thus they have value to humans.

They aren't entities.

They are only as much entities as you or me.

Their lives have no value; what they do, does, but their life as in, their being, doesn't.

To who ? Value is not an absolute, it's subjective.
Also, if what they do has value, how are they themselves not valuable ?
Can what they do happen without them being alive ?

They are little more than chemical reactions, and it is these reactions and actions that are important. As for them, they really aren't any more valuable than a rock.

Same goes for you and me.

 

[Norsefire]

Thus they have value to humans.

What they do does, and therefore, they. But they as individuals are not valuable, but disposable.

They are only as much entities as you or me.

No. We Humans can think and know and wonder and love.

That makes each individual valuable. With insects, a thousand of them are not as valuable as a single Human being.

They are each like robots: their purpose is to do what they do, but they are not abstract and thus, disposable.

They are as spiritually valuable as your blender.

To who ? Value is not an absolute, it's subjective.
Also, if what they do has value, how are they themselves not valuable ?
Can what they do happen without them being alive ?


Same goes for you and me.

No. They are alive, but not in the same way you and I are. We are knowing. If we die, it matters, because our personality and persona die.

They only exist to do what they do and have no feeling, only purpose. This makes them simple tools.

Tools are valuable but disposable.

 

[Enmos]

What they do does, and therefore, they. But they as individuals are not valuable, but disposable.

So they do have value.
Humans are only valuable to humans.
Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.

No. We Humans can think and know and wonder and love.

en·ti·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entity

Explain to me how insects are not entities.
Besides, animals can think and know, and probably love too.

That makes each individual valuable. With insects, a thousand of them are not as valuable as a single Human being.

Insects are individuals just like humans are. They are just different.

They are each like robots: their purpose is to do what they do, but they are not abstract and thus, disposable.
They are as spiritually valuable as your blender.

Our purpose is to do what we do.
In what way are humans abstract that doesn't apply to insects ?
How are they disposable, you admitted earlier that they are valuable to us. Disposing of them would be a disaster to humans, a BIG disaster.
Spirituality is as important as my blender. Actually, I take that back.. my blender is more important.

No. They are alive, but not in the same way you and I are. We are knowing. If we die, it matters, because our personality and persona die.
They only exist to do what they do and have no feeling, only purpose. This makes them simple tools.
Tools are valuable but disposable.

You ignorant bastard.