An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Life is but a dream
Sha-boom, sha-boom.

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

I’d say any system that produces near-exact copies of itself.

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

It’s the old half-remarkable question.

Pointless

captain_spalding said:

Life is but a dream
Sha-boom, sha-boom.

I went all George Harrison.

Life is but a dream
Drifting on a stream
A stream
Consciously it seems
All of what remains

Ego brain
Man made shame
Shame love after it rains

You see my pain is real
Watch my world dissolve
And pretend that none of us see the fall
As I turn to sand
You took me by the hand
And declared, that love prevails over all

I am just a man
Fighting other men
For land, for land
While I turn to sand
In Spite of the pain

Ego brain
Man made shame
Shame love after it rains

You see my pain is real
Watch my world dissolve
And pretend that none of us see the fall
As I turn to sand
You took me by the hand
And declared, that love prevails over all

All of what remains

Ego brain
Man made shame
Shame love after it rains

You see my pain is real
Watch my world dissolve
And pretend that none of us see the fall
As I turn to sand
You took me by the hand
And declared, that love prevails over all
(Love after it rains)

Life is an American magazine published weekly from 1883 until 1972, occasionally from 1972 until 1978, then monthly from 1978 until 2000. It was bought by Henry Luce, at the time owner of Time, in 1936. See http://time.com/photography/life/.

HTH

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

I’d say any system that produces near-exact copies of itself.

Might that also include computer viruses, worms, etc
Interesting as they could be the precursor to AI similar to how organic life started and evolved

7 points in scrabble…

It’s hard to explain, it’s sort of like a box of chocolates.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

7 points in scrabble…

depends on how hard you play it.

sarahs mum said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

7 points in scrabble…

depends on how hard you play it.

well, ‘it’ is another 2 points…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

I’d say any system that produces near-exact copies of itself.

Would that come under self organizing?

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Is this better?

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Is this better?

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity.

or this?

An entropic self organizing symmetrical electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Is this better?

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity.

or this?

An entropic self organizing symmetrical electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity.

Can I take entropic and symmetrical out?

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

Defining life to a too strict criteria could mean you don’t recognise alien life on another planet as its appears to be non living in nature.

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

Most of that would come under self organizing, wouldn’t it?

“Response to stimuli” is getting close to “electro chemical reaction to energy”

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

I’d say any system that produces near-exact copies of itself.

Would that come under self organizing?

Not necessarily. “self organising” is very broad and not well defined.

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say any system that produces near-exact copies of itself.

Would that come under self organizing?

Not necessarily. “self organising” is very broad and not well defined.

Ok.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Can stars reproduce themselves? As in an explosion, then from that, it creates smaller stars?

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes, computer programs, robots and AI etc would be included.

Ok, how is this re interpretation

An entropic self organizing reproducing symmetrical electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity. ?

Can I take entropic and symmetry and “that evolves from simplicity to complexity.” out ?

A self organizing reproducing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

• Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

I believe that there is some dispute about whether or not a virus, in the real world, is alive. A computer virus would fall into the same grey area I think…

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

So, is reproduction entropic?

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

So, is reproduction entropic?

To combat it perhaps or temporary halt part of your genome from dying out

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Can stars reproduce themselves? As in an explosion, then from that, it creates smaller stars?

Yes, but the structures in the parent star are not copied to the baby star.

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

But is evolution a necessity of life?

furious said:

• Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

I believe that there is some dispute about whether or not a virus, in the real world, is alive. A computer virus would fall into the same grey area I think…

I don’t see why a virus should be deemed not to be alive.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

So, is reproduction entropic?

I don’t know.

What do you mean by entropic?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

But is evolution a necessity of life?

Possibly not a necessity but helpful for creating life forms that may have a better chance of surviving changes

• I don’t see why a virus should be deemed not to be alive.

There is debate about it…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.

So, is reproduction entropic?

I don’t know.

What do you mean by entropic?

In this case, Entropic is lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The inability for life to be perfect, ie we age then die, also DNA weakens over time etc

mollwollfumble said “In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

coded information

information is a component to life as well

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So, is reproduction entropic?

I don’t know.

What do you mean by entropic?

In this case, Entropic is lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The inability for life to be perfect, ie we age then die, also DNA weakens over time etc

mollwollfumble said “In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.”

Life adapts to its environment, or it dies out. Nothing to do with perfection other than being well adapted. However environments change sooner or later, which sorts out the organisms that can adapt and those that cannot. Those that can are usually the result of mutations (evolution) that have given the organism the means to do so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Life is what you make it.

Or according to Wikipedia:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

Alternative definitions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

What about prions?

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

By your definition, then, a DNA molecule is alive, since it uses the resources in a cell to “make a near exact copy of itself using coded information.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say simulations of living things since they are locked into their physical environment of the digital woirld.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know.

What do you mean by entropic?

In this case, Entropic is lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

The inability for life to be perfect, ie we age then die, also DNA weakens over time etc

mollwollfumble said “In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.”

Life adapts to its environment, or it dies out. Nothing to do with perfection other than being well adapted. However environments change sooner or later, which sorts out the organisms that can adapt and those that cannot. Those that can are usually the result of mutations (evolution) that have given the organism the means to do so.

Or is it the other way around?

Energy adapts to its environment?

If energy from the sun started life, then life adapts to the environment, while energy sustains it?

In out case energy is certainly involved.

Is fire alive?

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

By your definition, then, a DNA molecule is alive, since it uses the resources in a cell to “make a near exact copy of itself using coded information.”

I don’t see any reason why a DNA molecule, or even a prion, should not be considered alive.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say simulations of living things since they are locked into their physical environment of the digital woirld.

All living things are locked into an environment of some sort.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say simulations of living things since they are locked into their physical environment of the digital woirld.

All living things are locked into an environment of some sort.

True.

furious said:

Is fire alive?

No, why would it be considered alive?

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

Is fire alive?

No, why would it be considered alive?

It has a number of attributes similar to something living

• No, why would it be considered alive?

Why wouldn’t it? Like an animal, it moves into an area and consumes the resources and it either moves on to find more or it starves…

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

Is fire alive?

No, why would it be considered alive?

It has a number of attributes similar to something living

But it doesn’t reproduce the structures of the parent in the offspring.

In fact there are no well defined structures, or parents and offspring, so it can’t be alive.

furious said:

• No, why would it be considered alive?

Why wouldn’t it? Like an animal, it moves into an area and consumes the resources and it either moves on to find more or it starves…

It reproduces by making little copies of itself

furious said:

• No, why would it be considered alive?

Why wouldn’t it? Like an animal, it moves into an area and consumes the resources and it either moves on to find more or it starves…

That’s why those features of animals should not be considered features of life.

• In fact there are no well defined structures, or parents and offspring, so it can’t be alive.

Well, that is if you make an assumption about the definition of life that includes those things…

Cymek said:

furious said:

• No, why would it be considered alive?

Why wouldn’t it? Like an animal, it moves into an area and consumes the resources and it either moves on to find more or it starves…

It reproduces by making little copies of itself

But it doesn’t. It grows by making dissimilar extensions to itself.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It seems to me that the one thing in that list that is common to all life, and absent from all non-life, is reproduction. All living things make near exact copies of themselves using coded information, and no non-living things do that.

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say that’s unhelpfully simplistic. It makes more sense to simply acknowledge that there are some “things that can reproduce” that are not living.

furious said:

• In fact there are no well defined structures, or parents and offspring, so it can’t be alive.

Well, that is if you make an assumption about the definition of life that includes those things…

It’s not an assumption; it is the definition. It is the only feature of life that is not found in entities that move and grow, and react to stimuli, but are not considered to be alive.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Don’t some computer programs do the above, usually malicious ones

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say that’s unhelpfully simplistic. It makes more sense to simply acknowledge that there are some “things that can reproduce” that are not living.

Why does it?

ok,

This interpretation

An entropic self organizing reproducing electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity using a coding information system. ?

shorter version

A self organizing reproducing electro-chemical reaction to energy using coded information. ?

Cymek said:

furious said:

• No, why would it be considered alive?

Why wouldn’t it? Like an animal, it moves into an area and consumes the resources and it either moves on to find more or it starves…

It reproduces by making little copies of itself

Like people.

:)

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes. I’d say that makes them living things.

I’d say that’s unhelpfully simplistic. It makes more sense to simply acknowledge that there are some “things that can reproduce” that are not living.

Why does it?

Because the most useful definition of life is a biological one. I can’t see any point in extending it beyond that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

A non living rock could smash into Earth and wipe us all out and the universe would just carry on as normal

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d say that’s unhelpfully simplistic. It makes more sense to simply acknowledge that there are some “things that can reproduce” that are not living.

Why does it?

Because the most useful definition of life is a biological one. I can’t see any point in extending it beyond that.

Perhaps at the moment but if artificial life is created or human created biological life it would become important especially say if said life asks for the right to determine its own destiny and not be property

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d say that’s unhelpfully simplistic. It makes more sense to simply acknowledge that there are some “things that can reproduce” that are not living.

Why does it?

Because the most useful definition of life is a biological one. I can’t see any point in extending it beyond that.

The purpose is so we can identify Life, Jim, but not as we know it, when we see it.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

A non living rock could smash into Earth and wipe us all out and the universe would just carry on as normal

Yes, or we could move the rock and live a bit longer.

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

A non living rock could smash into Earth and wipe us all out and the universe would just carry on as normal

Yes, or we could move the rock and live a bit longer.

:)

I wonder if aliens would visit us if we moved an earth destroying asteroid?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

A non living rock could smash into Earth and wipe us all out and the universe would just carry on as normal

Yes, or we could move the rock and live a bit longer.

:)

I wonder if aliens would visit us if we moved an earth destroying asteroid?

Or if god would appear if we made one hit us

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

I don’t much like the talk of “deepest purpose”, but I very much like what the book says (or what the author of the book says the book says, since I haven’t actually read it).

What is life? I think it is determined by DNA, if you have it you are alive, if you don’t, then you are not alive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

I don’t much like the talk of “deepest purpose”, but I very much like what the book says (or what the author of the book says the book says, since I haven’t actually read it).

He seems to be saying that our actions are only important to us and that our future has no influence on the universe.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

This article on a new book mentions entropy

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-actions-dont-matter-in-a-cosmic-sense-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/

Our Actions Don’t Matter in a Cosmic Sense—but That Doesn’t Mean They Don’t Matter

Does Science reveal our deepest purpose?

I don’t much like the talk of “deepest purpose”, but I very much like what the book says (or what the author of the book says the book says, since I haven’t actually read it).

Im sure about deepest purpose either.

Haven’t read the book.

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

Is fire alive?

No, why would it be considered alive?

That’s an old one. It was already old when I first heard about the possibility in 1975. Fire satisfies the following criteria. It grows, reproduces, dies, eats. The fidelity of reproduction is so poor, however, that it goes extinct after a few generations.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

furious said:

Is fire alive?

No, why would it be considered alive?

That’s an old one. It was already old when I first heard about the possibility in 1975. Fire satisfies the following criteria. It grows, reproduces, dies, eats. The fidelity of reproduction is so poor, however, that it goes extinct after a few generations.

I’d say it does not reproduce in any meaningful sense of the term. Any separate bit of fire generated by the central fire do not inherit the features of their “parent”, and that is the key requirement for life.

In summary, fire is a form of life.

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

roughbarked said:

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

An excellent quote, from a man who was born wealthy, never worked for anyone but his family and himself, never applied for a job anywhere, lived a life of privilege, and who died wealthy and privileged.

That said, and despite his deviousness, he was a more compassionate and socially-responsible politician than most the current L/NP (and much of the ALP) put together.

SCIENCE said:

In summary, fire is a form of life.

You appear to have had a keyboard malfunction.

In summary, fire is not a form of life.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

An excellent quote, from a man who was born wealthy, never worked for anyone but his family and himself, never applied for a job anywhere, lived a life of privilege, and who died wealthy and privileged.

That said, and despite his deviousness, he was a more compassionate and socially-responsible politician than most the current L/NP (and much of the ALP) put together.

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

An excellent quote, from a man who was born wealthy, never worked for anyone but his family and himself, never applied for a job anywhere, lived a life of privilege, and who died wealthy and privileged.

That said, and despite his deviousness, he was a more compassionate and socially-responsible politician than most the current L/NP (and much of the ALP) put together.

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

An excellent quote, from a man who was born wealthy, never worked for anyone but his family and himself, never applied for a job anywhere, lived a life of privilege, and who died wealthy and privileged.

That said, and despite his deviousness, he was a more compassionate and socially-responsible politician than most the current L/NP (and much of the ALP) put together.

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

bugger

roughbarked said:

Life, wasn’t meant to be easy.

Fraser was vilified for saying that, quoting George Bernard Shaw.

M. Scott Peck was deified for saying almost exactly the same thing, “life is struggle”, quoting Buddha.

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Has anyone mentioned “memes” and “computer viruses” yet? Or the classic definition of “eats, grows, reproduces, dies, evolves”? Has anyone mentioned the distinction between “life as we know it” vs “carbon-based life”? Along with “fire”, the other classic is “crystals” – because crystals can reproduce. Or cyclic chemical reactions?

I wonder what the oxford english dictionary says.

1 The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

‘the origins of life’
‘cats require visual experience during the first few weeks of life’

1.1 Living things and their activity.

‘lower forms of life’
‘the ice-cream vendors were the only signs of life’
‘the valley is teeming with bird life’

2 The existence of an individual human being or animal.

‘a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people’
mass noun ‘she didn’t want to die; she loved life’

2.1 (with adjective or noun modifier) A particular type or aspect of human existence.

‘his father decided to start a new life in California’
mass noun ‘a teacher will help you settle into school life’
‘revelations about his private life’

2.2 A biography.

‘a life of Shelley’

2.3 (in Christianity and some other religious traditions) either of the two states of a person’s existence separated by death.

‘he departed this life on 28 March 1912’

2.4 (in Hinduism and some other religious traditions) any of a number of successive existences in which a soul is held to be reincarnated.

‘a spiritual pilgrimage into her past lives’

2.5 A chance to live after narrowly escaping death (with reference to the nine lives traditionally attributed to cats)

‘we were called to the hospital, but the old rogue had nine lives and seemed to be negotiating for another two’

2.6 (in various games) one of a specified number of chances each player has before being put out.

3 usually “one’s life”. The period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.

‘she has lived all her life in the country’
‘they became friends for life’

3.1 The period during which something inanimate or abstract continues to exist, function, or be valid.

‘underlay helps to prolong the life of a carpet’

3.2 A sentence of imprisonment for life.

4 Vitality, vigour, or energy.

‘she was beautiful and full of life’

5 (in art) the depiction of a subject from a real model, rather than from an artist’s imagination.

‘the pose and clothing were sketched from life’
See also “still life”

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

A few more definitions / examples.

1. Life is a cellular automaton invented by John Horton Conway.

2. Life is any entity that locally reduces its own entropy.

3. Life is Gaia, the Earth’s surface viewed as a vast self-regulating organism.

Life is that property which a being will lose as a result of falling out of a cold and mysterious cave thirteen miles above ground level. (HHGTTG)

btm said:

Life is that property which a being will lose as a result of falling out of a cold and mysterious cave thirteen miles above ground level. (HHGTTG)

Arthur’s ear? Was that from the radio play and not the book?

‘Joyce’s political future in doubt as talk of mutiny goes public’ – ABC News

Whoops, wrong thread.

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

An excellent quote, from a man who was born wealthy, never worked for anyone but his family and himself, never applied for a job anywhere, lived a life of privilege, and who died wealthy and privileged.

That said, and despite his deviousness, he was a more compassionate and socially-responsible politician than most the current L/NP (and much of the ALP) put together.

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

Being loathed has nothing to do with it. All politicians are employed by the citizens of their country, whether they like it or not.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

Being loathed has nothing to do with it. All politicians are employed by the citizens of their country, whether they like it or not.

Nothing to do with what?

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

Being loathed has nothing to do with it. All politicians are employed by the citizens of their country, whether they like it or not.

Nothing to do with what?

Don’t think there is much life left in this one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Internet tells me that the man who said that was a politician until 1983. I arrived in Australia in 1984, so he was never employed by me, but I assume he was employed by you (and all other Australians) up to that year.

You missed the “maintain the rage” era then. Frazer was loathed by a large segment of the population.

Being loathed has nothing to do with it. All politicians are employed by the citizens of their country, whether they like it or not.

Frazer was loathed, and rightly so for some reasons, but by comparison with the boofheads that inhabit Parliament these days, he was almost a nice bloke. He certainly expressed serious qualms about the more extreme rightist ideas circulated within the L/NP in the years prior to his death.

From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1187809
Subject: re: What is Life?

> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life,

Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

In the case of life, a key factor is fidelity of reproduction. Too perfect and it can’t evolve, not perfect enough and it dies out.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Could the last line be construed as a slight dig or sledge at Barnaby Joyce?

>Please excuse pet peeve. There is no unequivocal definition of anything. There is no unequivical definition of a “chair” for instance, for any attempted definition introduces other concepts that themselves need definition.

hope your not challenging my stereotype chair, the arse park

which raises the questions..

is a bum a seat, and would a chair exist without a seat, or bum?

I have a question:

the ad says that Panadol Rapid relieves pain twice as fast as regular Panadol.

So, why do they bother to continue to make regular Panadol?

‘I’d like some pain relief, please’

Certainly, sir – would you like rapid relief from your pain?’

‘Oh, no, i think i’d like it to continue for twice as long as necessary.’

I suppose that should have gone in the chat thread.

captain_spalding said:

I have a question:

the ad says that Panadol Rapid relieves pain twice as fast as regular Panadol.

So, why do they bother to continue to make regular Panadol?

‘I’d like some pain relief, please’

Certainly, sir – would you like rapid relief from your pain?’

‘Oh, no, i think i’d like it to continue for twice as long as necessary.’

Presumably Panadol Rapid is more expensive.

Soluble aspirin works faster than the ordinary ones but is more expensive.

Returning to the meaning of life:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Has anyone mentioned “memes” and “computer viruses” yet? Or the classic definition of “eats, grows, reproduces, dies, evolves”? Has anyone mentioned the distinction between “life as we know it” vs “carbon-based life”? Along with “fire”, the other classic is “crystals” – because crystals can reproduce. Or cyclic chemical reactions?

The point I have made above is that if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it, then we don’t need to worry about “eats, grows, dies, or evolves”. Anything that has a complex mechanism for making copies of itself, including the complex mechanism for making copies of itself (in other words, anything that reproduces) should (IMO) be considered a living entity. No doubt there may be entities whose copying mechanism are so simple that it is debateable whether hey should be considered “life” or not, but this does not include fire or crystals. They don’t “reproduce” in this context, they just grow.

Under this definition, computer viruses should clearly be considered alive. I was initially inclined to dismiss memes as not having any reproductive mechanism, but on reflection I’m not so sure. I think maybe we should consider memes to be a form of life, albeit a parasitic one that employs the mechanisms within other creatures for reproductive purposes.

mollwollfumble said:

I wonder what the oxford english dictionary says.

1 The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

‘the origins of life’
‘cats require visual experience during the first few weeks of life’

1.1 Living things and their activity.

‘lower forms of life’
‘the ice-cream vendors were the only signs of life’
‘the valley is teeming with bird life’

2 The existence of an individual human being or animal.

‘a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people’
mass noun ‘she didn’t want to die; she loved life’

2.1 (with adjective or noun modifier) A particular type or aspect of human existence.

‘his father decided to start a new life in California’
mass noun ‘a teacher will help you settle into school life’
‘revelations about his private life’

2.2 A biography.

‘a life of Shelley’

2.3 (in Christianity and some other religious traditions) either of the two states of a person’s existence separated by death.

‘he departed this life on 28 March 1912’

2.4 (in Hinduism and some other religious traditions) any of a number of successive existences in which a soul is held to be reincarnated.

‘a spiritual pilgrimage into her past lives’

2.5 A chance to live after narrowly escaping death (with reference to the nine lives traditionally attributed to cats)

‘we were called to the hospital, but the old rogue had nine lives and seemed to be negotiating for another two’

2.6 (in various games) one of a specified number of chances each player has before being put out.

3 usually “one’s life”. The period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.

‘she has lived all her life in the country’
‘they became friends for life’

3.1 The period during which something inanimate or abstract continues to exist, function, or be valid.

‘underlay helps to prolong the life of a carpet’

3.2 A sentence of imprisonment for life.

4 Vitality, vigour, or energy.

‘she was beautiful and full of life’

5 (in art) the depiction of a subject from a real model, rather than from an artist’s imagination.

‘the pose and clothing were sketched from life’
See also “still life”

I think definition 1 is unnecessarily restrictive. All the rest are just analogies or extensions to the base definition.

So self-“reproduction” is the one essential quality to life.

I wonder if that meme will ever become alive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Returning to the meaning of life:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

An electro-chemical reaction to energy.

or is this a bit better.

A self organizing electro-chemical reaction to energy.

Has anyone mentioned “memes” and “computer viruses” yet? Or the classic definition of “eats, grows, reproduces, dies, evolves”? Has anyone mentioned the distinction between “life as we know it” vs “carbon-based life”? Along with “fire”, the other classic is “crystals” – because crystals can reproduce. Or cyclic chemical reactions?

The point I have made above is that if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it, then we don’t need to worry about “eats, grows, dies, or evolves”. Anything that has a complex mechanism for making copies of itself, including the complex mechanism for making copies of itself (in other words, anything that reproduces) should (IMO) be considered a living entity. No doubt there may be entities whose copying mechanism are so simple that it is debateable whether hey should be considered “life” or not, but this does not include fire or crystals. They don’t “reproduce” in this context, they just grow.

Under this definition, computer viruses should clearly be considered alive. I was initially inclined to dismiss memes as not having any reproductive mechanism, but on reflection I’m not so sure. I think maybe we should consider memes to be a form of life, albeit a parasitic one that employs the mechanisms within other creatures for reproductive purposes.

mollwollfumble said:

I wonder what the oxford english dictionary says.

1 The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

‘the origins of life’
‘cats require visual experience during the first few weeks of life’

1.1 Living things and their activity.

‘lower forms of life’
‘the ice-cream vendors were the only signs of life’
‘the valley is teeming with bird life’

2 The existence of an individual human being or animal.

‘a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people’
mass noun ‘she didn’t want to die; she loved life’

2.1 (with adjective or noun modifier) A particular type or aspect of human existence.

‘his father decided to start a new life in California’
mass noun ‘a teacher will help you settle into school life’
‘revelations about his private life’

2.2 A biography.

‘a life of Shelley’

2.3 (in Christianity and some other religious traditions) either of the two states of a person’s existence separated by death.

‘he departed this life on 28 March 1912’

2.4 (in Hinduism and some other religious traditions) any of a number of successive existences in which a soul is held to be reincarnated.

‘a spiritual pilgrimage into her past lives’

2.5 A chance to live after narrowly escaping death (with reference to the nine lives traditionally attributed to cats)

‘we were called to the hospital, but the old rogue had nine lives and seemed to be negotiating for another two’

2.6 (in various games) one of a specified number of chances each player has before being put out.

3 usually “one’s life”. The period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.

‘she has lived all her life in the country’
‘they became friends for life’

3.1 The period during which something inanimate or abstract continues to exist, function, or be valid.

‘underlay helps to prolong the life of a carpet’

3.2 A sentence of imprisonment for life.

4 Vitality, vigour, or energy.

‘she was beautiful and full of life’

5 (in art) the depiction of a subject from a real model, rather than from an artist’s imagination.

‘the pose and clothing were sketched from life’
See also “still life”

I think definition 1 is unnecessarily restrictive. All the rest are just analogies or extensions to the base definition.

So self-“reproduction” is the one essential quality to life.

I wonder if that meme will ever become alive.

Life comprises

Energy (without the sun, no life) Star and planet positions ie Goldilocks zone

Electro-chemical reaction (without a chemical body like earth containing water oxygen etc, no life)

Reproduction

Information (coded information in DNA)

>if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it

A useful general definition of life would have to include all general characteristics of life-as-we-know-it (that is, characteristics that are common to all known living forms and serve, in combination, to distinguish them from non-living forms).

Otherwise we’re defining “life-as-we-don’t-know-it”, and we’re not qualified to do that :)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Life comprises

Energy (without the sun, no life) Star and planet positions ie Goldilocks zone

Electro-chemical reaction (without a chemical body like earth containing water oxygen etc, no life)

Reproduction

Information (coded information in DNA)

Two points:

1. To define “what is life” you don’t need to include the things that allow the basic mechanism to occur. So if we define life as any system that has complex mechanisms that it reproduces in copies of itself, then we don’t need to talk about energy sources or types, or specific types of information coding.

2. Specifying “electro-chemical” reactions, or a source of the energy is unnecessarily restrictive. It is possible that entirely mechanical life forms could be created, or life forms using photo-electric energy.

Bubblecar said:

>if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it

A useful general definition of life would have to include all general characteristics of life-as-we-know-it (that is, characteristics that are common to all known living forms and serve, in combination, to distinguish them from non-living forms).

Otherwise we’re defining “life-as-we-don’t-know-it”, and we’re not qualified to do that :)

If we want to understand what life is we have to understand the properties that help define it.

Bubblecar said:

>if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it

A useful general definition of life would have to include all general characteristics of life-as-we-know-it (that is, characteristics that are common to all known living forms and serve, in combination, to distinguish them from non-living forms).

Otherwise we’re defining “life-as-we-don’t-know-it”, and we’re not qualified to do that :)

I’d say what we need is to define the characteristics that only occur in living things, and never in non-living things, and the only one I can think of is reproduction (as I have defined previously, thus excluding fire and crystals, and the like).

Reading TATE on “life”, and moll’s most recent post, raises the question of Gaia.

Is the Earth a living entity?

I’d say that since it does not reproduce, it isn’t.

It is a collection of interacting living entities.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading TATE on “life”, and moll’s most recent post, raises the question of Gaia.

Is the Earth a living entity?

I’d say that since it does not reproduce, it isn’t.

It is a collection of interacting living entities.

Gaia is a religious construct.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Life comprises

Energy (without the sun, no life) Star and planet positions ie Goldilocks zone

Electro-chemical reaction (without a chemical body like earth containing water oxygen etc, no life)

Reproduction

Information (coded information in DNA)

Two points:

1. To define “what is life” you don’t need to include the things that allow the basic mechanism to occur. So if we define life as any system that has complex mechanisms that it reproduces in copies of itself, then we don’t need to talk about energy sources or types, or specific types of information coding.

2. Specifying “electro-chemical” reactions, or a source of the energy is unnecessarily restrictive. It is possible that entirely mechanical life forms could be created, or life forms using photo-electric energy.

Third point:

3. At “black smokers” – deep ocean, mostly mid ocean ridges there is no sun’s energy input. Lifeforms there rely on magmatic energy from the earth’s interior.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it

A useful general definition of life would have to include all general characteristics of life-as-we-know-it (that is, characteristics that are common to all known living forms and serve, in combination, to distinguish them from non-living forms).

Otherwise we’re defining “life-as-we-don’t-know-it”, and we’re not qualified to do that :)

I’d say what we need is to define the characteristics that only occur in living things, and never in non-living things, and the only one I can think of is reproduction (as I have defined previously, thus excluding fire and crystals, and the like).

But it would seem that you’re actually wrong :)

You’ve decided that “reproduction only occurs in living things” even though you have examples of reproduction occurring in things defined as non-living by currently prevailing criteria.

So from the outset you’re not really entitled to say “reproduction only occurs in living things”.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Reading TATE on “life”, and moll’s most recent post, raises the question of Gaia.

Is the Earth a living entity?

I’d say that since it does not reproduce, it isn’t.

It is a collection of interacting living entities.

Gaia is a religious construct.

It doesn’t look like one to me, but feel free to tell us why I’ve got it wrong.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Life comprises

Energy (without the sun, no life) Star and planet positions ie Goldilocks zone

Electro-chemical reaction (without a chemical body like earth containing water oxygen etc, no life)

Reproduction

Information (coded information in DNA)

Two points:

1. To define “what is life” you don’t need to include the things that allow the basic mechanism to occur. So if we define life as any system that has complex mechanisms that it reproduces in copies of itself, then we don’t need to talk about energy sources or types, or specific types of information coding.

2. Specifying “electro-chemical” reactions, or a source of the energy is unnecessarily restrictive. It is possible that entirely mechanical life forms could be created, or life forms using photo-electric energy.

Third point:

3. At “black smokers” – deep ocean, mostly mid ocean ridges there is no sun’s energy input. Lifeforms there rely on magmatic energy from the earth’s interior.

? I thought they got their energy from the hot water?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>if we want a general definition of life, rather than life-as-we know-it

A useful general definition of life would have to include all general characteristics of life-as-we-know-it (that is, characteristics that are common to all known living forms and serve, in combination, to distinguish them from non-living forms).

Otherwise we’re defining “life-as-we-don’t-know-it”, and we’re not qualified to do that :)

I’d say what we need is to define the characteristics that only occur in living things, and never in non-living things, and the only one I can think of is reproduction (as I have defined previously, thus excluding fire and crystals, and the like).

But it would seem that you’re actually wrong :)

You’ve decided that “reproduction only occurs in living things” even though you have examples of reproduction occurring in things defined as non-living by currently prevailing criteria.

So from the outset you’re not really entitled to say “reproduction only occurs in living things”.

What are these examples you speak of?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is to define the characteristics that only occur in living things, and never in non-living things, and the only one I can think of is reproduction (as I have defined previously, thus excluding fire and crystals, and the like).

But it would seem that you’re actually wrong :)

You’ve decided that “reproduction only occurs in living things” even though you have examples of reproduction occurring in things defined as non-living by currently prevailing criteria.

So from the outset you’re not really entitled to say “reproduction only occurs in living things”.

What are these examples you speak of?

I thought you said you were willing to accept various computer programs as “living things” because they can “reproduce”.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

But it would seem that you’re actually wrong :)

You’ve decided that “reproduction only occurs in living things” even though you have examples of reproduction occurring in things defined as non-living by currently prevailing criteria.

So from the outset you’re not really entitled to say “reproduction only occurs in living things”.

What are these examples you speak of?

I thought you said you were willing to accept various computer programs as “living things” because they can “reproduce”.

Yes, quite right. Why would they not be considered “living”?

Certainly you can defined sub-sets of life if you wish, or you may choose to make the definition of life itself more restrictive, but that doesn’t seem useful to me.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

But it would seem that you’re actually wrong :)

You’ve decided that “reproduction only occurs in living things” even though you have examples of reproduction occurring in things defined as non-living by currently prevailing criteria.

So from the outset you’re not really entitled to say “reproduction only occurs in living things”.

What are these examples you speak of?

I thought you said you were willing to accept various computer programs as “living things” because they can “reproduce”.

Perhaps they are living and are the very beginning of self emergent artificial intelligence, similar to how complex life arose from single celled organisms

Would a 3D printer that printed 3D printers capable of printing 3D printers be alive?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What are these examples you speak of?

I thought you said you were willing to accept various computer programs as “living things” because they can “reproduce”.

Yes, quite right. Why would they not be considered “living”?

Certainly you can defined sub-sets of life if you wish, or you may choose to make the definition of life itself more restrictive, but that doesn’t seem useful to me.

But someone defining life by biological criteria (that is, including all factors that in combination are essential to biological life) simply accepts these computer programs as examples of non-living things that can reproduce, or at least can reproduce in the context of the human technology of which they are part.

There doesn’t seem to be any reason to expand the definition of life to include things that don’t include all the necessary biological criteria. As the phrase suggests, “Life-as-we-know-it” owes its category to knowledge, not a priori decisions to muck about with terminology.

Biological intelligence could be rare and most of them create artificial intelligence that far outstrips their capability and variability and numerous versions branch of from that initial creation

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Two points:

1. To define “what is life” you don’t need to include the things that allow the basic mechanism to occur. So if we define life as any system that has complex mechanisms that it reproduces in copies of itself, then we don’t need to talk about energy sources or types, or specific types of information coding.

2. Specifying “electro-chemical” reactions, or a source of the energy is unnecessarily restrictive. It is possible that entirely mechanical life forms could be created, or life forms using photo-electric energy.

Third point:

3. At “black smokers” – deep ocean, mostly mid ocean ridges there is no sun’s energy input. Lifeforms there rely on magmatic energy from the earth’s interior.

? I thought they got their energy from the hot water?

Directly, yes they do. Ultimately though, the water at mid ocean ridges is heated by mantle magma; energy coming from cooling of the earth.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I thought you said you were willing to accept various computer programs as “living things” because they can “reproduce”.

Yes, quite right. Why would they not be considered “living”?

Certainly you can defined sub-sets of life if you wish, or you may choose to make the definition of life itself more restrictive, but that doesn’t seem useful to me.

But someone defining life by biological criteria (that is, including all factors that in combination are essential to biological life) simply accepts these computer programs as examples of non-living things that can reproduce, or at least can reproduce in the context of the human technology of which they are part.

There doesn’t seem to be any reason to expand the definition of life to include things that don’t include all the necessary biological criteria. As the phrase suggests, “Life-as-we-know-it” owes its category to knowledge, not a priori decisions to muck about with terminology.

It’s not mucking about with terminology. If you want to consider only biological life, that ‘s fine (once you have defined “biological”), but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Third point:

3. At “black smokers” – deep ocean, mostly mid ocean ridges there is no sun’s energy input. Lifeforms there rely on magmatic energy from the earth’s interior.

? I thought they got their energy from the hot water?

Directly, yes they do. Ultimately though, the water at mid ocean ridges is heated by mantle magma; energy coming from cooling of the earth.

Oh, sorry, I read “magmatic” as “magnetic” :)

Anyway, I have another life to get on with.

>but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

So you think defining life by reference to imaginary stuff is more scientifically useful than restricting your definitions to the world that science actually describes?

Seems unhelpful.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

? I thought they got their energy from the hot water?

Directly, yes they do. Ultimately though, the water at mid ocean ridges is heated by mantle magma; energy coming from cooling of the earth.

Oh, sorry, I read “magmatic” as “magnetic” :)

Ha!

:)

Bubblecar said:

>but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

So you think defining life by reference to imaginary stuff is more scientifically useful than restricting your definitions to the world that science actually describes?

Seems unhelpful.

Perhaps if you do restrict your definitions you could miss out on recognising life in a completely different form.
You do need to have some definition of course but try not to restrict it too much

Bubblecar said:

>but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

So you think defining life by reference to imaginary stuff is more scientifically useful than restricting your definitions to the world that science actually describes?

Seems unhelpful.

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

If we eventually come across things that apparently have some attributes of life but not others, we can study them in detail to see if our current definitin of life needs expanding.

I can’t see that computer programs currently fit that bill. They are simply aspects of human technology, dependent on human cognition for their existence in the first place and the maintenance of human technology for their continued existence (and “reproduction”).

As Cymek says, that technology may eventually become fully self-supporting and develop more characteristics currently unique to life, but I’m happy to wait until that happens before meddling with basic terms :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

So you think defining life by reference to imaginary stuff is more scientifically useful than restricting your definitions to the world that science actually describes?

Seems unhelpful.

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

to answer the question requires considering that you and all the life around you originated from something that doesn’t qualify as life (and even the present life is constituted of things non-living, requires it, like gravity, light, whatever), so the question has about it, again, the distortions of considering it from the perspective of what minds do.

humans (and other life forms) fairly clearly have a native category for living as contrasted with inanimate (pick a word, non-living then).

time scales too, I mean humans are somewhat captive of timescales of lifetimes, extended through generations, granted, culture too.

you could take the forces that contributed to abiogenesis to be life, I mean they were or are life-giving, which might include the formation of galaxies even. Whatever self-ordering.

I’d tend to think of life (potential) as any (physics) example of where transduction (energy conversion) might occur, use of an energy gradient, that lends to structure, happening, accident or not. Devices (arrangement) that tend what people call a function, though attributing purpose gets dodgy, still you get the idea.

so the question needs to go back to the forces that incline abiogenesis, of organic life, and outside organic life the definition can be explored.

certainly replication’s in there, but I can imagine a one off example of life being built, that never replicated, but it would have been assembled by something that is a replicator.

consciousness, to some extent, is a life that isn’t all replicator, or self-replicator, it’s an example of some departure from it, though’s housed in a replicator.

recursion might be seen as replication, which happens in minds, and between them, or across them. Still the conscious differentiated or individuated I is some departure from that. Might be just a flicker you know, here and there, contributing to the local order, the negentropy.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>but if you want to think about the features of “life” (as we know it) that might exist elsewhere or in the future then that restriction isn’t useful.

So you think defining life by reference to imaginary stuff is more scientifically useful than restricting your definitions to the world that science actually describes?

Seems unhelpful.

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

how about we define ‘living things’ as anything that consumes nutrients and excretes waste?

Bubblecar said:

If we eventually come across things that apparently have some attributes of life but not others, we can study them in detail to see if our current definitin of life needs expanding.

I can’t see that computer programs currently fit that bill. They are simply aspects of human technology, dependent on human cognition for their existence in the first place and the maintenance of human technology for their continued existence (and “reproduction”).

As Cymek says, that technology may eventually become fully self-supporting and develop more characteristics currently unique to life, but I’m happy to wait until that happens before meddling with basic terms :)

All living things depend on an eco-system not of their making.

Many living things depend very specifically on other particular members of the eco-system, which may provide all their food etc.

Certainly if we can find some aspect of computers that make it non-living, then we can say they are not alive, but being dependant on a human provided eco-system is clearly not such an aspect.

We might add evolution to reproduction as an essential of life. I’m not sure I’d agree, but I’m open to argument.

If we did that it would exclude many (but not all) computer “life forms”.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

how about we define ‘living things’ as anything that consumes nutrients and excretes waste?

Most descriptions will include a number of physiological functions:

The characteristics of life

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This characteristic exhibits all or most of the following traits:

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

The notion of developing a scientific definition of life was introduced to our class early in my first year university biology course. We came to the conclusion that the concept was poorly defined, and that there was no general consensus even amongst biologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

The above article discusses it well. Especially here, where the seven notions below are considered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life.

Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.

Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

I remember one discussion point in our course was whether or not one should include death as part of the definition of life. I thought that notion had significant merit.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

how about we define ‘living things’ as anything that consumes nutrients and excretes waste?

We’d have to include cars and all sorts of engines then, as well as fire.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the contrary, I want to define life by what defines the thing we call life, rather than specifically how the only example we have available does the things that constitute being alive.

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

how about we define ‘living things’ as anything that consumes nutrients and excretes waste?

A motor car does that. And we certainly wouldn’t call those things alive.

>but being dependant on a human provided eco-system

It’s not an eco-system, it’s a machine specifically designed to manipulate digital information. The invention of such devices is entirely dependent on human cognition, thus a computer and its software are human cognitive tools.

We may eventually develop them into more than that but it hasn’t happened yet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

What defines the thing we call life are a number of factors that have to exist in combination for living things to “live”.

how about we define ‘living things’ as anything that consumes nutrients and excretes waste?

We’d have to include cars and all sorts of engines then, as well as fire.

change ‘consumes’ to ‘absorbs’ then..

Bubblecar said:

>but being dependant on a human provided eco-system

It’s not an eco-system, it’s a machine specifically designed to manipulate digital information. The invention of such devices is entirely dependent on human cognition, thus a computer and its software are human cognitive tools.

The fact that a computer is a machine designed for a specific purpose does not stop it being an eco-system from the point of view of the programs running within it.

Really gone now.

it’s likely possible to define life as the possibility space from which it emerged, or even might emerge.

transition said:

it’s likely possible to define life as the possibility space from which it emerged, or even might emerge.

A human being sitting on a stack of wood is not normally defined as a “cello” :)

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

it’s likely possible to define life as the possibility space from which it emerged, or even might emerge.

A human being sitting on a stack of wood is not normally defined as a “cello” :)

Very clever.

:)

:)

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

it’s likely possible to define life as the possibility space from which it emerged, or even might emerge.

A human being sitting on a stack of wood is not normally defined as a “cello” :)

yes but there’s life in the possibility of becoming a cello.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

it’s likely possible to define life as the possibility space from which it emerged, or even might emerge.

A human being sitting on a stack of wood is not normally defined as a “cello” :)

yes but there’s life in the possibility of becoming a cello.

fairly much all of human ambition (for example) is descended from possibility space, and the materials for that don’t all or entirely originate or reside within (of systems involving replication it’s not all replication, much is not)

so life has something to do with probability. What’s possible, conditions that existed before.

lady and I just talking about this

there seems some attribute to do with continuation (into the future), related replication but that latter doesn’t define it.

if you take the idea of the end of life, in that is the proposition it has stopped. A permanent end of life would imply no possibility of it reemerging, or continuing.

in our day-to-day, or moment-to-moment view of life is this very powerful notion of something that continues.

so life, importantly, is a continuation of something. More precisely it’s the possibility of it continuing.

when a parent thinks about a childs’ life, they think about the future. This is a clear example of possibility space, of what might happen, what they might become.

same of individuals and groups input into culture.

if I hoped for you a good life, this includes that you might take from possibility space opportunities to make it a good life.

so of conscious creatures there seems another dimension to what life is. This potentially might help explain what life is, but it too might muddy the view. It raises the question of if defining it locally will get you a satisfactory answer.

it strikes me that life can be forces inclining what might be in the future, not just what is.

thermodynamics, times arrow presses this, it’s an every-day-experience.

i’m wondering of other creatures, other species, what they have that translates into a sense of continuation, like my dog, or down the chain to ameba.

or a plant.

a sense of possibility space they may not have, but the thing is possibility space itself is not something that is thought into existence, or made so by the idea, it exists independently. A tree or ameba is acting within it, the tree and ameba exist because of it, brought into existence courtesy of, happened-upon, accidents largely.

Saying Life is reproduction is ok but it gives no context.

Its like saying what is consciousness, when consciousness is part of a larger system, consciousness needs awareness, and awareness needs perception, perception needs information.

I’m still happy with this short definition

A reproducing electro-chemical reaction to energy using coded information.

longer version

An entropic self organizing reproducing electro-chemical reaction to energy that evolves from simplicity to complexity using a coded information system.

The wording needs to be done a bit better and expanded into a proper paragraph and added somewhere in this Wikipedia article to give a brief overview of the life process.

Yes I know its not perfect, but what is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

transition said:

lady and I just talking about this

there seems some attribute to do with continuation (into the future), related replication but that latter doesn’t define it.

if you take the idea of the end of life, in that is the proposition it has stopped. A permanent end of life would imply no possibility of it reemerging, or continuing.

in our day-to-day, or moment-to-moment view of life is this very powerful notion of something that continues.

so life, importantly, is a continuation of something. More precisely it’s the possibility of it continuing.

when a parent thinks about a childs’ life, they think about the future. This is a clear example of possibility space, of what might happen, what they might become.

same of individuals and groups input into culture.

if I hoped for you a good life, this includes that you might take from possibility space opportunities to make it a good life.

so of conscious creatures there seems another dimension to what life is. This potentially might help explain what life is, but it too might muddy the view. It raises the question of if defining it locally will get you a satisfactory answer.

it strikes me that life can be forces inclining what might be in the future, not just what is.

thermodynamics, times arrow presses this, it’s an every-day-experience.

i’m wondering of other creatures, other species, what they have that translates into a sense of continuation, like my dog, or down the chain to ameba.

or a plant.

a sense of possibility space they may not have, but the thing is possibility space itself is not something that is thought into existence, or made so by the idea, it exists independently. A tree or ameba is acting within it, the tree and ameba exist because of it, brought into existence courtesy of, happened-upon, accidents largely.

Does continuation of life have purpose?

Does life need purpose?

Meaning of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

The meaning of life, or the answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?”, pertains to the significance of living or existence in general. Many other related questions include “Why are we here?”, “What is life all about?”, or “What is the purpose of existence?” There have been a large number of proposed answers to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. The search for life’s meaning has produced much philosophical, scientific, theological, and metaphysical speculation throughout history. Different people and cultures believe different things for the answer to this question.

this bit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Definitions

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life This is partially because life is a process, not a substance Any definition must be general enough to both encompass all known life and any unknown life that may be different from life on Earth.

Tau.Neutrino said:

this bit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Definitions

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life This is partially because life is a process, not a substance Any definition must be general enough to both encompass all known life and any unknown life that may be different from life on Earth.

Sounds like a good philosophers lot to define something we know absolutely nothing about, or if it actually exists.