Life can be defined on a case-by-case basis in our daily life.
We can say a cat is a living creature, a bacteria is one also, an hurricane is not, a computer is not, a virus is living, an enzyme is one ...
But what is the rule, what would be the rule to decide about what is living and what is not living?
Elsewhere, I have seen this reduced to 'animate' and 'inanimate', but I ask, can we say that, for instance, your 'hurricane' is 'inanimate'?
'Organic' and 'Inorganic' is another divisive definition. I do not agree with the division in the first instance. Our Human bodies are made up of as much 'inorganic' material as they are 'organic', and without the 'inorganic' elements we could not support the rest of the 'organism'. Very quickly, without certain 'inorganic' materials ('Iron' springs to mind, in flow) - we would simply die. Is the shell of an egg 'organic' or 'inorganic'? - It certainly grows 'organically' on the inside of an 'organism'... Is 'oil' organic? If you say 'yes' is it therefore a form of 'Life', and if you say 'no', remember that it used to be trees!
Therefore, we can conclude that ‘organic’ becomes ‘inorganic’, and vice versa.
And so, I favour the idea of a Dynamic Unity, as it makes sense, has no contradictions to it.
'Life' is, then, another series of motions of possibility of what exists. All things are 'Life' interchanging.
g.
'Organic' and 'Inorganic' is another divisive definition. I do not agree with the division in the first instance. Our Human bodies are made up of as much 'inorganic' material as they are 'organic', and without the 'inorganic' elements we could not support the rest of the 'organism'. Very quickly, without certain 'inorganic' materials ('Iron' springs to mind, in flow) - we would simply die. Is the shell of an egg 'organic' or 'inorganic'? - It certainly grows 'organically' on the inside of an 'organism'... Is 'oil' organic? If you say 'yes' is it therefore a form of 'Life', and if you say 'no', remember that it used to be trees!
Therefore, we can conclude that ‘organic’ becomes ‘inorganic’, and vice versa.
And so, I favour the idea of a Dynamic Unity, as it makes sense, has no contradictions to it.
'Life' is, then, another series of motions of possibility of what exists. All things are 'Life' interchanging.
g.
First of all, the claim that viruses are alive is VERY strongly debated in many scientific circles. The problem arises in that they do not consist of cells, and require cellular machinery to reproduce. Therefore, since we have defined that life arises from other cells... they don't fit the bill. Others argue that the virus is simply genetic code doing what it tells itself is necessary to survive. This argument can be used for all organisms and, depending on your beliefs, humans as well.
Secondly, the Organic/Inorganic statement is a little strange too. The problem lies in what we define as "organic." In general, it seems to be arbitrary collections of hydrocarbons, or other molecules that are common to life forms on earth, that are defined as "organic." It's really a matter of semantics, but usually organic chemistry refers to those hydrocarbons that incorporate common chemical aspects (ketones, amino acids) that are only found in living organisms. Kinda strange, but what we see in living things is what defines organic molecules as organic. Does that make sense?
Secondly, the Organic/Inorganic statement is a little strange too. The problem lies in what we define as "organic." In general, it seems to be arbitrary collections of hydrocarbons, or other molecules that are common to life forms on earth, that are defined as "organic." It's really a matter of semantics, but usually organic chemistry refers to those hydrocarbons that incorporate common chemical aspects (ketones, amino acids) that are only found in living organisms. Kinda strange, but what we see in living things is what defines organic molecules as organic. Does that make sense?
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Jan 15 2008, 02:09 AM)
But what is the rule, what would be the rule to decide about what is living and what is not living?
The only living things are the ones that reflect you. "Everything" is not alive because it tends to reflect itself and you have to decode it, whereas "not much of anything" brings out what you see of it... and reflects you:
Man without eyes, is man
without tongue, is man
without leg, is man
without liver, is man
without consciousness, is man
without brain, is man
without mind, is man
I am most certainly getting away from this before it becomes one more thread about Terri Schiavo or abortion. It's their lacks that make them who they are. Not only am I not in a position to decide, I don't see myself reflected in them --where the word "reflection" has the practical meaning that implies that I will have a future use for whatever conclusions I can reach out of them. I have no use for those thoughts. I can not use and I refuse to use Terri Schiavo and fetuses as my reflection.
I will be damned if I consider myself in a position to, say, criticize her husband. I don't have it in me.
The only living things are the ones that reflect you. "Everything" is not alive because it tends to reflect itself and you have to decode it, whereas "not much of anything" brings out what you see of it... and reflects you:
Man without eyes, is man
without tongue, is man
without leg, is man
without liver, is man
without consciousness, is man
without brain, is man
without mind, is man
I am most certainly getting away from this before it becomes one more thread about Terri Schiavo or abortion. It's their lacks that make them who they are. Not only am I not in a position to decide, I don't see myself reflected in them --where the word "reflection" has the practical meaning that implies that I will have a future use for whatever conclusions I can reach out of them. I have no use for those thoughts. I can not use and I refuse to use Terri Schiavo and fetuses as my reflection.
I will be damned if I consider myself in a position to, say, criticize her husband. I don't have it in me.
QUOTE
First of all, the claim that viruses are alive is VERY strongly debated in many scientific circles.
Isn't that exactly what 'scientific circles' are supposed to do, then?
g.
Could life be "that which resists entropy"?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Feb 2 2008, 05:32 AM)
Could life be "that which resists entropy"?
Definitely! Olé! Of course! Evidently! Absolutely! (Coke is it!) Bingo! Bravo!
Definitely! Olé! Of course! Evidently! Absolutely! (Coke is it!) Bingo! Bravo!
Hey All,
I've always thought that procreation was a prerequisite, proliferation of the species being possibly the main goal of life.
Just a thought.
Peace,
Go Pats!
Ron
I've always thought that procreation was a prerequisite, proliferation of the species being possibly the main goal of life.
Just a thought.
Peace,
Go Pats!
Ron
Ron, I've found something that we truly disagree on. Even though I lived in Mass. for two years, I have to wish young Mr. Manning and the Giants the win this year.
So, there.
So, there.
All:
>First of all, the claim that viruses are alive is VERY strongly debated in many scientific circles.
I guarantee you that IF the Mars rover found a virus on Mars the next day the news paper headlines would read "LIFE ON MARS"
As for the organic / inorganic:
I think that you have to take the sum of the whole, not the parts into account.
>First of all, the claim that viruses are alive is VERY strongly debated in many scientific circles.
I guarantee you that IF the Mars rover found a virus on Mars the next day the news paper headlines would read "LIFE ON MARS"
As for the organic / inorganic:
I think that you have to take the sum of the whole, not the parts into account.
Unfortunately paul h, I'd have to believe you on that "Life on Mars" headline.
However, it wouldn't have to be as ridiculous as it sounds. If we did find a virus, it would have required a life form to allow it to reproduce. So, at some point or another, life must have been on Mars, given the virus didn't fall off the rover.
I'm actually very unsure as to where viruses fall. Firstly, they incorporate a huge variety of the 'organic' components that we find elsewhere in life. It seems as though they are definitely 'organic' in that sense of the word. But on the other hand, they lack the ability to respond to their environment in a significant way. A bacteria is able to respond to different concentrations of compounds in it's immediate environment instantly by regulating gene transcription/translation, enzyme activity etc... but viruses are inert. If anything, I'd call them parasites, but they don't even perform metabolic functions. It's quite a tricky subject.
To further cloud the picture. Look at this.
I can't find who said this originally, but it sums up my sentiments. "A virus is a virus!" I would postulate that they are not alive in the sense that you and me are, possibly getting close to the way that bacteria are, and are certainly not inorganic/dead!
However, it wouldn't have to be as ridiculous as it sounds. If we did find a virus, it would have required a life form to allow it to reproduce. So, at some point or another, life must have been on Mars, given the virus didn't fall off the rover.
I'm actually very unsure as to where viruses fall. Firstly, they incorporate a huge variety of the 'organic' components that we find elsewhere in life. It seems as though they are definitely 'organic' in that sense of the word. But on the other hand, they lack the ability to respond to their environment in a significant way. A bacteria is able to respond to different concentrations of compounds in it's immediate environment instantly by regulating gene transcription/translation, enzyme activity etc... but viruses are inert. If anything, I'd call them parasites, but they don't even perform metabolic functions. It's quite a tricky subject.
To further cloud the picture. Look at this.
I can't find who said this originally, but it sums up my sentiments. "A virus is a virus!" I would postulate that they are not alive in the sense that you and me are, possibly getting close to the way that bacteria are, and are certainly not inorganic/dead!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.