What constitutes life?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I decided to start a thread based on the end of this thread (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showt...119#post884119)

So, let's hear it: what do you think constitutes life? Do viruses? What about red blood cells (which have no nuclei) or neurons (which are incapable of cellular division)?

[Medensis]

I decided to start a thread based on the end of this thread (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showt...119#post884119)

So, let's hear it: what do you think constitutes life? Do viruses? What about red blood cells (which have no nuclei) or neurons (which are incapable of cellular division)?

To me, it isn't something that can be defined as black or white. I consider sentient robots, alive. However, I also consider viruses alive.

Perhaps, we humans place anything with self-pursuing motives as "life".

[finder]

I decided to start a thread based on the end of this thread (http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showt...119#post884119)

So, let's hear it: what do you think constitutes life? Do viruses? What about red blood cells (which have no nuclei) or neurons (which are incapable of cellular division)?

I think ultimately it just comes down to what we personally choose to label something as "life." In my opinion to be alive is more them mere existence. You must have the ability to experience enjoyment of life along with the determination of survival. Seems to me anything less is just existence. For instance an ant. Colony driven, no individual personalities, just an existence of gathering and working towards the survival of the colony, in the service of the queen. And her only purpose? To reproduce. To me that's not life. It's existing for the sake of existence.

[Medensis]

For instance an ant. Colony driven, no individual personalities, just an existence of gathering and working towards the survival of the colony, in the service of the queen. And her only purpose? To reproduce. To me that's not life. It's existing for the sake of existence.

Well, your "life" definition is probably the worst I've ever heard and only shows your "half-thought" on the issue. If that were the case, lots of humans would be considered... zombies?

I did find a couple gems in your musings. Survival and reproduction... fundamentally one in the same. Fundamentally, "self-assumed motive".

[finder]

Well, your "life" definition is probably the worst I've ever heard and only shows your "half-thought" on the issue. If that were the case, lots of humans would be considered... zombies?

I did find a couple gems in your musings. Survival and reproduction... fundamentally one in the same. Fundamentally, "self-assumed motive".

Apparently you haven't thought about it as deep as I. For, haven't you or someone you care about ever expressed during periods of depression, how lifeless you feel and that you're feeling like you're just existing? I have. And when your mood improves you feel more alive. Or are you going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about?

[Medensis]

Apparently you haven't thought about it as deep as I. For, haven't you or someone you care about ever expressed during periods of depression, how lifeless you feel and that you're feeling like you're just existing? I have. And when your mood improves you feel more alive. Or are you going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about?

Sometimes people say "I'm starving!" as a dramatic expression of how hungry they are. They aren't actually starving, even though it feels like it.

Feeling more alive doesn't mean you were dead, it just means you weren't enjoying things as much. Enjoyment is subjective.

[finder]

Feeling more alive doesn't mean you were dead, it just means you weren't enjoying things as much. Enjoyment is subjective.

Subjectivity is a part of life, is it not? Everyone has subjective experiences. Cats even have them to a certain extent. They play, even until well into adulthood. Mine is 14 and still plays. His life is subjectively good, full of the enjoyment of life compared to that of an alley cat on the verge of starvation. But the ant? When observed objectively their is no evidence of subjective experiences for the ant. We see an over all purpose of serving the ecological system for which it inhabits and nothing more.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

I think ultimately it just comes down to what we personally choose to label something as "life." In my opinion to be alive is more them mere existence. You must have the ability to experience enjoyment of life along with the determination of survival. Seems to me anything less is just existence. For instance an ant. Colony driven, no individual personalities, just an existence of gathering and working towards the survival of the colony, in the service of the queen. And her only purpose? To reproduce. To me that's not life. It's existing for the sake of existence.

So a person in a persistent vegetative state is not "alive,"?

The implication would be interesting in the abortion debate. After all, without subjective experiences, a thing is not "alive," according to your definition - so one can certainly abort a fetus (which does not have subjective experiences).

[Jack]

An idea I've been tossing around lately is that life and not-life are not discrete states. Humans are a collection of atoms that apart from us wouldn't be thought of as living, but when joined together can form what we would call a living thing. When the atoms that form my body were still a part of a star they weren't considered life-forms. When we die we actually just stop producing the energy we once needed to beat our hearts, make our lungs work and our brains to make synaptic connections. Death is the point at which our atoms quit cooperating to maintain what we call life.

To sum my thought up, there is no real distinction between life and non-life, between living things and non-living things. On the atomic level everything is the result of the actions of atoms. Some may form a rock, which we think of as non-living, while others become a part of you which we consider a living being. Yet at the most basic level all matter is the same, and the terms living and non-living are applied at a macro-level without acknowledging the uselessness of that differentiation at the atomic level. In reality we are not alive or dead, we are simply a collection of atoms behaving for now in a manner we call living.

[Medensis]

So a person in a persistent vegetative state is not "alive,"?

The implication would be interesting in the abortion debate. After all, without subjective experiences, a thing is not "alive," according to your definition - so one can certainly abort a fetus (which does not have subjective experiences).

Could've sworn there was a ''like" button here somewhere.

[Medensis]

An idea I've been tossing around lately is that life and not-life are not discrete states. Humans are a collection of atoms that apart from us wouldn't be thought of as living, but when joined together can form what we would call a living thing. When the atoms that form my body were still a part of a star they weren't considered life-forms. When we die we actually just stop producing the energy we once needed to beat our hearts, make our lungs work and our brains to make synaptic connections. Death is the point at which our atoms quit cooperating to maintain what we call life.

To sum my thought up, there is no real distinction between life and non-life, between living things and non-living things. On the atomic level everything is the result of the actions of atoms. Some may form a rock, which we think of as non-living, while others become a part of you which we consider a living being. Yet at the most basic level all matter is the same, and the terms living and non-living are applied at a macro-level without acknowledging the uselessness of that differentiation at the atomic level. In reality we are not alive or dead, we are simply a collection of atoms behaving for now in a manner we call living.

So, you're saying nothings alive... and nothings dead? Interesting. Sounds like "The Watchmen".

This:
"A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference."
-Dr. Manhattan

[Jack]

Thanks for the quote. I guess it just goes to show that no thought is truly original. I'm not familiar with The Watchmen but I may have to check it out. Is it a book or...?