How Does One Define 'Life'?

I was responding to a topic on here and I had a thought: what, precisely, differenciates the 'sentient' from the 'lifeless'?

One could argue that being made of organic materials makes this, or emotion, perhaps. But then how does one define emotion?

((I'd like to please disregard religious reasons as religion very much exists for that purpose, more or less. What I'm saying is, please don't drag souls into this, simply because they answer it easily: what has a soul is alive, most would concurr. Therefore, science))

Anyway. Most living creatures react by chemical and electrical impulses yadda yadda, synthesise things, have the seven life processes.

However, I'm going to challenge these 'seven life processes'. I did this a while ago, back when I was thirteen - and I got my science teacher to at least agree that I had a point.

Fire excretes (Converts fuel source into other things, eg. CO2 and H2O.), reproduces (one could argue that rogue sparks that become a seperate fire are in fact seperate fires and thus 'progeny'), respires (Always aerobically though not using glucose, usually), grows (does it heck), moves, senses (that one's a little less solid, however, fire never inexplicable burns off the end of its fuel source so it's at least guided by its fuel source) and dies.

this is just fire however. Most would agree that fire is most certainly not alive, merely a chain reaction. So, where do we draw the line? Organic substances, emotion? Again, what consitutes emotion, feelings? Plants don't, they react to chemical impulses, bend towards the sun - though they can't talk, who is to say they don't 'enjoy' the sensation of the sun on their leaves?

Viruses come into question here. They are made of only basic components. They, in fact, lack many of the 'life processes' but are categorised as alive: why? because they are made of ribonucelic acid, because they 'infect and breed'? They don't eat. They don't feel. They don't think. Yet they are regarded as living beings.

So if we can call viruses alive, where is the line drawn? What makes us 'living beings' rather than merely 'functioning systems of chemical reactions' why do we call a fox a fox, why do we call a plant a plant, what if life? It's a question that those among us unwilling to believe in a sentient deity, as I, cannot really answer.

Any responses?

That is an interesting topic. I'm sure some would say that there IS no great difference between living and non-living, that there is merely a wide range of living, from rocks to algae to trees to sponges to worms to insects to mammals... etc. Certainly there seems to be a differing degree of living among things - we feel remorse for killing a human, but not a sea urchin. That brings up the the question of intelligent sentience - those beings for whom their Being is an issue for them, to quote Heidegger.

So, I've said a lot of nothing. Sorry. I'm interested to see how others respond.

Actually I'd feel pretty bad if I killed a sea urchin - I'm not a vegetarian (I mean, the animal's dead anyway) but I don't like willfully ending life unless it's to end misery.

Not the topic at hand, though, I like your response.

I dnt reli fnk ther is a way 2 define life nd if ther was it probly wudnt make a difference 2 owt, i lyk the fire thin tho! :)

"I dnt reli fnk ther is a way 2 define life nd if ther was it probly wudnt make a difference 2 owt, i lyk the fire thin tho! :)"

wow that was utterly miserable.

on the main topic, it is all semantics and does not matter what we call living or not. Things are what they are and will continue to be without naming conventions.

I like that you guys seem to just accept it. That's a good way of going about it, I wish I could. I know that life is life, but what is life. That's what's making my brain itch.

Also anybody who types in netspeak probably doesn't have the braind to even be considering anything beyond what makeup to wear. *Mutters*

Also, that figment of imagination thing, don;t even get me started.

Perhaps we may define life as the will to survive apart from the natural laws that rules the natural reproduction of natural events such as the random laws of nature which are a constant, that is always was and always will be. I have heard a, man of faith proclaim that the only constant is change, Yet even the most skeptical will usually accept that evolution will always adapt to a favorable environment ,thus everything we are observing now, even the most skeptical would define as life, is subject to an improvement which leads us back to purpose greater than accidental change

I was responding to a topic on here and I had a thought: what, precisely, differenciates the 'sentient' from the 'lifeless'?"

I've read the responses and quite frankly I cannot believe the generalisations put out there. And frankly to discount the 7 life processes and use an example (fire) as means to discount it, is quite frankly funny, I could add clouds to one of your example...

Firstly one key feature is the inanimate objects aren't organic. Secondly, they do not possess DNA, thirdly the first commonality between all living organisms, they respond to their environment.

I think I understand where you're coming from, however I feel that its quite arrogant to assume, that all living beings are somehow similar to us, when it's evident they aren't. However, if we look at nature, you'd respect the fact that the definition of life is adaptive.

I suggest to keep an open mind and not assume that every creature/living thing, do the same things we do...

Also I'd like to reiterate, that although our technology and current scientific knowledge is quite minimal, however, I'm sure we'll find out if plants do have thought processes.

My mother always told me, look at the plants and you'll see their devotion to god...Lol

Noir, I was, for one, thirteen, and never once mentioned that it 'discounted it'. Please don't mock me.

Apart from that though, I see your point.

Doesn't answer the question at all, though I see your point.

Schemilix: Let me just say that your post bring so many schools of thought and ask many arrogant open ended questions..

A quote I read sums your post perfectly: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are"

I think what you have to distingush is that not everyone is like you, a plant is a plant, it has the same things you do, as all living things do, it is alive, it has been proven that it feels pain, in that when removed, cut or peeled, it releases a massive wave of hormones, similar to our release of endorphines. But that's where we draw the line...

We are still at the baby stages in scientific methodologies....And quite frankly I believe that your questions, whether biological,chemical, philosophical,psychological....It is just to vast an answer for anyone to give you point blank...I suggest you shorten your questions to just one... :)

Life is unfair.

Noir... I think you misinterpreted. I'm not asking for a definite answer; why would I actually care enough to take their thoughts as my own? I'm asking what people think. It's a discussion.

Also, calling me arrogant, that I'm going to let you figure out my opinion on.

^ Also what you just brought up, interesting. I'd define my characters as 'alive' in a certain sense, but not the same sense as, say, a human. That brings up the additional question of 'do we have a hierarchy of life' such as, say, ants being 'lesser' than humans because they're smaller or think less or don't do x y and z, etc.

We like to think that we are important, we are at the head of the "food chain" and we are intelligent being. In reality we are no more important that any other creature that exolved."

Rikki, you contradicted yourself, in that you see humanity as nothing more than a step forward towards an evolutionary chain, yet blame humanity for basically being who it is? Plus aren't you one of them...It seems to me that your hating your own evolution? Shame Shame...Lol.

At any rate, I still can't believe that you're pessimistic on humanity, even though according to you, it is within our nature to destroy everything that is in our way...Lol

I think every human being is different and individual with their own idealogies. Don't lump everyone and give them the same label, even though many haven't even committed the crime in question...

It makes me wonder if dinosaurs had dreams. It seems to me that even the most non religious would agree that man could leave a time capsule behind with much more than dead bones in it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXPcPD
tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6BzTCQ6

If life were simply a product of its environment as say combustion it would have no other choice than to obey the laws of nature and exist when conditions are favorable
oxygen + fuel + ignition = flame yet living creatures seem to depend on a parent of a greater number of factors over time. In other words life from non living substance is not as spontaneous
The essence of flame will always depend on environment that it also changes

Hey Noir, don't lump us either. Humanity as a whole is a very sad creature. Very few other animals stab each other in the back for perosnal gain, simpky because it doesn't make sense to kill one's own kin. I hate it too when we cosndier ourselves superior. Food chains are FAR too basic, try a food web. On the food chain... There are many. A Food web of say, English food, would have us at the top because very few animals in England are capable of actually devouring you these days, but theoretically somewhere like mainland Europe could have wolves eating humans or whtever. It's all respective.

Anyway, placement in any kind of hierarchy in terms of food is extremely general: chameleons are hailed as being an evolutionary marvel yet they eat bugs and get eaten.

Oh and, here's a stimulating quote I liked:

I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
- John Lennon

Just thought it was quite topical.

Almost every step of man's progress has been born in the turmoil of war or the preparation for war. In reality, what is the basic cause of war?? It is GREED!!"

Thank you Rikki, for proving that lumping someone into a group, is not only a costly mistake, but a grave injustice to today's society.

Its funny you speak of necessity, because when I think of necessity, I think of the myth of Er. And how every person is accountable for his own actions or inactions.

I do not want to be called greedy, when clearly I haven't done anything of that sort, holocaust causalties wouldn't want to be lumped with their assailants.

Frankly, humanity works cohesively because of the differences in individuality, not the other way round.

We got into this mess because of certain people's actions, and I think that the whole shouldn't be blamed for the actions of a few...

Schemilix: What? So you don't want to be called an individual, where you as a whole is accountable for your own sins? I don't understand your logic.

We aren't top of the food chain, we are omnivores living amongs other carnivores and herbivore. We don't eat carnivores...

I don't eat wolves, and I'm pretty sure, wolves won't eat me, unless they're very hungry. Foxes wouldn't even eat humans, they'd rather eat garbage.

The fact is, life is about each individual, not the collective.

Life. It's that thing. Before death.

I can't be bothered to put an intelligent-sounding reply. Blast you philosophers.

"Virtually without exception, mankind is greedy in that we all want what we don't have."

I don't think that is the definition of greed, what you've described is desire. But lets first make a distinction between the poor wanting a meal, while the rich want the same. Both of the them want the same thing, the difference is the former wants to survive...And survival is the one commonality that we share we all sentient beings.

"Mankind is top of the food chain because with the right weapon or technology, we can go out and kill whatever we like. Man can take to the air, the land or the water to kill as he pleases and unless there is a mishap or accident he will succeed."

That is where you're wrong in respects to food chains, we are not the top of the food chain, we're merely side by side with other mammals that eat the same as we do. We are the top in intelligence and adapting and thriving in our own surroundings.

"The true fact is that while an individual can often survive on its own, mankind is a social animal and it is the collective that is considered more important. War is the perfect example of this!! Uncountable millions of humans have willingly given their lives so that their collective my survive and prosper."

You could say the same about wild dogs, wolves, meerkats and other social animals living among a group. You could say that two different groups of the same animals fighting for their territory, is an act of war and trespass. You could say that millions of meerkats look out and willingly give their own lives to protect their collective. If I take a puppy from its family, the mother is prepared to die for her child, the same can be said for humans. The fact is our actions is the same as animals, our only difference is our INTELLIGENCE.

Frankly the idea that war is a human invention is propostrous. Our war is more elaborate and sophisticated and more cruel than that of an animals...But the basics is still the same. Destroy the person, invading your territory.

When animals fought it was generally a quick and noisey affair, the one with the greater strength always won and in most cases the fighting was conducted by the males who were more concerned over mating rights."

No there's a difference between fights or wars against territory and duels for mating choices.

Rikki, you're going in circles...You're also blurring the lines...Firstly, you should first respect each species's different traits. For example you recounted an example where a mother rhino isn't protecting its young from a lioness...Did you ever think maybe the mother knew her child was at an age where it could very well defend itself?

Fact is, war is merely a concept of defeating those who you percieve as an enemy. Whether huge or little, every war has the same tactics. And one huge part of war.

It can be seen in the animal kingdom, and it can be seen within our societies and history.

"It's a question that those among us unwilling to believe in a sentient deity, as I, cannot really answer."

That is very honest though the way I feel about it is that I could dance all around the fact that there are different levels of consciousness that a sentient being may experience at a given time. Since I cannot remember being an embryo I cannot truthfully testify as to how conscious I was, yet I was given the so-called right to be born.

If I was beaten unconscious, and survived could anyone be charged with murder?

You may discover there is a difference between scientific and judicial evidence if your conscience be your guide

"Every time an animal fights there is the chance that it can be severely injured and because of that, most animals try to avoid a fight that does not involve gaining or keeping territory. The reason that territory is important for animals is that with territory also comes mating rights."

Rikki, really, mating, so basically what you're telling me is that the males fight for their lives for sex. Not for food, their family, but for sex.

Lol...Wow...Didn't I already state that we have to make a distinction between war and duels?

It seems to me that you blurred those lines on several occasions. Rikki, animals have wars, lets make that clear, many of them back out those fight or retreat because they know the possibility of winning is nil. Self-preservation is one of the tenets of survival.

"One side wants what the other side has (that is basically Greed) while the other side is fighting for its survival and to maintain the status quo.
Sometimes a war can be fought over what we call priciples and in such cases the rights and wrongs of he situation can be difficult to discover.
In other cases the wars are fought over religion. Both sides claim that their god is right and all powerful and so they slaughter eachother in the name of peace."

Let me first just say that you simplify the necessity of war. I mean I see war as a natural cause rather than a predetermined condition within all of us, although I do understand that you have somewhat taken into account what behavioural psychologist have been stating, that we are inherently violent and that war is merely an outlet to that violence.

There are many theories on the actual precepts of war, however, if we remove the variables (religion, class, injustice), the remaining constant will always be territoriality. And that is a universal trait many of us share.

The concept of alpha male has no basis on why wars are met... Duels are nothing more than clashes of ego, the prize being the female...

War in its basic form is nothing more than protecting or seizing lands between the two independent parties... It would be easier if the two co-existed, however they'd always be a war, as long as the two exist.

I think we went off topic...lol

Ah well at least it's off topic that's well thought out. Maybe create a thread for it?

I don't think every king come to that conclusion... It seems to me Rikki that you often generalise and summarise without looking at different perspectives behind historical narratives...

I mean you agreed with the theory that warfare is merely an extension of animal behaviour, rather than an inherent displacement of violence...

But I don't understand why alpha males comes into this... I mean if anything masculinity has nothing to do with the totality of war... Even a matriarch society (amazons, hyenas) would wage war to protect their territory...

Lol... It was a fun discussion, however I feel that you've generalised so much I can't point it out...

Reminds me of how Bill O' Reilly will never get sued for defamation... lol

I believe an excavation has revealed that the samartian society housed the myth of amazons... Although Herodotus once eluded that the samaritan were nothing more than a mix of amazons and their male counterpart scythians.

I believe that patriarchy is no more enforced by the women than the men... However if I look at the definition of matriarchy it is no more a twin than its opposite... For example the amazons...

You're right in the thinking of mythology stemming from actual events that conspired...

For example the birth of Athena, rather than overthrowing her father as the fates foretold, it would seem that she is bound by him... In hindsight we would be able to establish that there was a religion (goddess worship) that grew in number, which endorsed the idea of matrifocal that would have overwhelmed patriarchy... However it was quickly quashed or swallowed...

Its quite funny how cruel the gods were... Lol

The gods were only cruel because man also gave then humanlike qualities."

Its funny how ancient religions made their gods on their same level. But then the gods are nothing more than archetypes of their own ideal

The world is awash with selfishness, cruelty and slaughter yet not one word or deed has been done by those with the power and authority, to stop it."

Lol...Ever the pessimist Rikki, I can understand where you're coming from, however let me add that its easy to cause destruction and mayhem and creulty to the world. But very hard to do the opposite. In Islam, we are all here to be tested on our merits, its easy to blame God for everything under the sun. But why not blame the person who actually done the blasephmous deeds. You can blame god for global warming, blame him for tsunami, blame him for all the ills under the sun. But again, if you look at it carefully you'll see where the origins of these problems rose.

First let me just say that from your first post when discussing with me have been purely pessimistic... You blame everyone for a minority's sins...

Those that kill in the name of God are hypocritical in that they kill God's own creatures to prove their own point...

I understand where you're coming from Rikki, but I don't see everyone as the same person (Greedy, selfish, murderous) as you do... I see everyone as an individual, with their own traits and perspectives...

Accepting life's good and bad and looking through different perspectives is what makes you a realist...

On the side-note, many people blame God for natural diasters, which is why I reiterate that once you look at its origins you'll see the real culprit.

It was reported online that a man was trying to warn everyone that there was going to be an earthquake in Italy and the officials stopped him from causing fear
The only way to avoid being killed by a natural disaster is to build your dwelling to withstand natures instability

Lol... Rikki, you assume... and generalise...

First let me point out that historically different forms of religion spread which threatened certain religions... which is why many fought for their beliefs... It was a different time back then.

Nowadays we see a spread of fundamentalism, which ironically fails to heed the fundamentals... The problem with fundamentalism is that it fails to reform to democratic ideals we have today... Plus the concept is mostly politically motivated rather spiritually.

Rikki I live helping those who truly need it and frankly I do hate certain things in this world, but I know where my limit is and understand from different perspectives... I see religion as a good thing but I also understand the the evils it withstood,

To just dismiss a concept because a few used it for their own goals is disrespectful to all those who used it to benefit themselves and their brethren.. You see yourself as a realist.. but really all you accept is your own reality...

Rikki, all you've defined is the bad in humanity, religion, cultures...etc.

Let me start by saying that the new religions often defended themselves against those who disbelieve it. In some ways, the older religions is afraid of dying out, like the ancient religions.

Which is why you usually have holy wars, it is often political however, one constant is true, it is about surivival (as I mentioned in my earlier posts)...And if we look at history, you'd understand that it. We don't see it in these years because each religions amassed many followers, therefore there was never a need for war. But again if you look at Israel and Palestine, you'd see my original point.

There is another point I find rather curious. Why did god wait 7,000, 10,000 15,000 years to reveal his religion to mankind?? Religion of a kind existed long before 7,000BCE."

In Islam, God didn't wait to reveal his religion, he's sent many prophets in many countries, to reveal himself, however, perversation of his words has spread...

Is god democratic?? I consider that god is a benign dictator for we are given no choices except good and evil, to kill or to die"

I would see god as a socialist or an egalitarian rather than a democrat. He sees everyone equally, and when the day comes, he'll judge us equally.

Rikki, it's quite evident fundamentalism is rife nowadays, however there are people stopping it. You can blame the layman for not doing anything. However you should blame those that want to kill an innocent, rather than heed their religion's words.

Its funny, interpretation of the book, is really key to the equation. Its complicated yet easy.

Rikki: Let me first say that when reading the Quran, you must first understand its original theme...It isn't a book that has an introduction,explanation of subject and conclusion. Nor is it restricted by presentation of historical evidence, problems of philosophy, social laws and facts of science. Though all may be eritten with no apparent links. New information sometimes crop up in another verse for no apparent reason. Which is why to understand the Quran you must first understand its underlying subject matter which is; Man

Man in relation to God; to himself; to God's other creatures. The Quran is nothing more than a guide. Which is why its very simple to those who understands the message it gives, and hard to those who don't...

As I said in my earlier posts, God is testing us.. He gives us the tools and sees whether or not we use it...

As for holy wars... Rikki, you just agreed with the point that war is about territoriality for survival. And protection and seizing of territory is an envitable.

On a side note, I would like to add that God is genderless, and that we shoul remove any form of anthroporphism...

In arabic there is only a "he" and "she" pronouns. In pre Islamic era, the arabs used to see women as nothing more than baby machines... And if they had baby girls, they would bury them alive, which is why addressing Allah as a "she " would garner no respect and arouse suspicion...If revised in turkish, 'he' would be 'O'...A genderless pronoun

Firstly Rikki: Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities.The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs. One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert. But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Its funny you mentioned the crusades... the christians killed several muslim civilians... Muslims never did the same...But even then Saladin gave Richard Lionheart his own doctor when he was seriously ill...

Lol... Its funny how you see my posting as someone who shouts at those critical of Islam...But all I've done was specify and define key answers to your generalisations. Lol... Its too funny:

1) The visigoths were already in civil war, plus in 612 they issued a decree that all jews were to either be baptised or be banished with their possessions confiscated... although the true nature of why the umayyads, however there are accounts that the son of Wittiza fled to Tanagier to seek aid from the umayyads.

2 You're basically agreeing that the christians only see or convert those around them rather than tolerate them... I gave examples seeing as your pessimistic view of religion, your generalisations of historical events and failure to understand societial norms.

War as I said has one unshakeable constant territoriality, every thing else is a variable...Its funny you first seen war as a human invention now you see it as an extension of animal behaviour... I guess now is about the time you say "I was wrong"...

Oops I forgot, you can critique God, religion, war, treatment of women,good people (apparently) doing nothing.. You can even curse it, however I ask that you respect the fact that societial norms today won't apply for those of yesteryear...

You should accept different perspectives rather than give one sided skim generalisations of historical accounts that somehow add nothing to the discussion or merely asserts my postings.

I ask that you actually read what I said rather than assume that I'm coming at you from a fanatical point of view... Read before you judge! Lol

Rikki: I have read every post you've made in this thread and honestly I could see a change in opinion... You've asserted that war is a human invention and that man is inherently violent and war was merely a displaced venting of that violence... And now you're stating that it is nothing more than an extension of animal behaviour... Do you see why I say that you're generalising and contradicting your own posts.

1) You can attest to it however the general hatred of jews shown by christians cannot be identified towards muslim treatment of jews, which has always been of tolerance

2) You can agree that the coptics were helping themselves however my point is that the muslims never forced their religion, which is why I gave that example...

As for Iran, don't associate Islam with the ayotolla's dream, look at Iran before his meddling... I think that application of shariah has been very poor indeed.

^^Lol.. I've read your interpretation of history, and really it is quite a simplistic and somewhat generalised thinking.

You have adopted unilateral social evolutionism and you assume that all societies follow the same mode of progression. I don't agree with this because really it follows an ethnocentric belief that the west is superior to those who are 'catching up'...

It is a very dangerous and discredited view... I would think that humanity originally formed societies according to the environment they lived in, after which it progressed and began trading and sharing its own culture with other societies...

I think the actual basis of war is too complex to discuss, however if we simplify it... we'd see that we share it with our animal counterparts.
Although the word INTELLIGENCE and ENVIROMENT are key factors

Lol... I'll be waiting... hopefully the post will be devoid in unilateral socio-evolutionary thinking...