LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThere is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.
What life means to you?
January 20th, 2008, 07:59 PM
There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.
What life means to you?
In scientific terms, life to me is a sentient form of some kind that quests for surivial-plants and animals alike, they are obviously different from carbon and gold. Life is that which well, lives! Breathes, eats, excretes, reproduces, not neccesarily in that order.
In a philosophical standpoint I believe life is about helping others, learning as much as you can and passing it to the next generation, by becoming really good, the next generation can be too.
i see
life - don't talk to me about life (marvin the paranoid android)
I suspect life is one of those things that is best not defined in science but in philosophy. Science should just get on with studying it: the absence of a definition does not prevent us from recognising it when we see it.
except of course in exobiology - our current parochial and ad hoc definition of life might prevent us from recognising it IF it exists and it is totally different from life on earthOriginally Posted by Ophiolite
I think that is one of the reasons I am somewhat reluctant to attempt a definition of life. Since it will tend to be influenced by what we are familiar with it could restrict our ability to recognise truly different lifeforms.
Worse yet, when we encounter a life form of radical character we might spend time arguing whether or not it met our criteria for life, rather than getting on with studying it.
As an example, I think one can learn a great deal about viruses without ever bothering to decide whether they are life or not.
the problem here is simply the way we categorize.
life and non-life. life isn't binary 1 or 0.
so, introducing the life-o-meter, on the very bottom, theres completely dead, ice-cold space rock. and at the top, sentient, self-aware beings!
in the future, i believe the boundaries between life, death and unliving is going to be truly pushed around, as medical "miracles" allows us to resurrect people, at longer and longer durations from being dead.
As a geologist and keen amateur astronomer (armchair variety) I would have to put the space rocks on top. :wink:
Life must follow these 7 conditions:
1. Reproduce
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Respond to Stimulus
7. Maintain homostatisis.
Why need it reproduce? Can you envisage a living organism that does not die? It would not need to reproduce.
So I wonder what turn humankind will face if it finds the secret of immortality and how we will continue to exist. That would be an new interesting angle on life of sentient beings, that is if we are classed as sentient by another intelligent species other than humans :|.
I can envision an organism obtaining eternal youth. Some trees can live to be up to 5,500 years. However, to not die, well that is impossible. Even diamonds can be destroyed.
If there is life humans make up death to define life ...
so if there's life before death, what comes before life ?
an egg
hahahaha
And before that a trip to the supermarket no doubt! hahahahahaan egg
hahahaha
Traditionally, people have divided organisms into the classes of plants and animals, based mainly on their ability of movement.
Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally
Where did you copy that from?
Is an argument to what is .we are using The internet now no?
Life: Something that contains DNA/RNA or other sequences of genes, which creates a necessity for survival.
Not entirely wrong, right?
Metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. But that is only a characterization of life on earth and we are but a microcosm, virtually an infinitesimal incident in a universal sea of possibilities. Each of these however is a reflection of a more fundamental property of matter: that of Emergence, whereby the whole exhibits qualities which are qualitatively different than the properties of its parts.
Life, in my opinion, is a particular instantiation of Emergence; the inconsequential trappings of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics only convenient exoskeletons du jour: They say if you write all the equations of mathematical physics on strips of paper and scatter them across the kitchen floor they won't get up and dance. I say if the strips behaved in the same non-linear fashion as a dancer, they would.
From this perspective, life becomes a property of dynamics, independent of genomes, proteins, metabolism, and natural selection . . . marbles would do.
i've said it before and i'll say it again : life is descent with modification, nothing more nothing less
Life as we know it, Jim.
since that goes without saying, i left it unsaid 8)Life as we know it, Jim.
| « Fungi or Amoeba | Electronic Microscope, a simple question... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
