Alive, alive, oh!

Energy, matter and space - this is my holy trinity. I see the universe as having a mind/way/order and so from my point of view, everything that exists is alive. To the less enlightened person this is not so and what I want to know is; what does “science” tell them the definition of a living entity is? I don’t know why it is that non-sentient life-forms (such as trees and plants) are considered living, while stuff like rocks and snowflakes and the moon and sun are not. Just what is this elusive distinction!?

Thank you for reading this. I hope you become as confused as me!:confused:

Why aren’t rocks alive? Mostly because they don’t meet the definition of “life.”

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

That’s what “life” means. If it doesn’t meet those requirements, it ain’t alive. And rocks don’t exhibit metabolism, growth, reproduction, et al..

You’re welcome to redefine “life” as you see fit. If you manage to convince people of your point of view, someday you can get the definition of life changed.

-andros-

Jeepers Boomer, I’m here trying to write a concise definition and andros just copies and pastes from the dictionary. Just see if I try for extra credit on these assignments again…

Anyway, rocks and suns and snowflakes are not alive by definition, as all bachelors are not married by definition. If you want to argue that “Life” represents just one set of the chemical and physical systems operating in the Universe, go right ahead. It sounds like it would be a rather obvious and dull debate, though.

What was your point again?

Sorry, Doc. I always got into trouble in school for taking shortcuts . . . the lawsuits petered out a bit once I learned how to cite a source, though.

Andros, you say:
life (lìf) noun
plural lives (lìvz)
1. Biology. a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and
inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to
stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. b. The characteristic state
or condition of a living organism.

I say that this is a circular definition: it says that life is the state of something that is alive. As for growth- types of volcanic rock can do this. Rocks can also “reproduce” by being broken into two rocks. When I throw a rock at your head, this is a response to a stimuli (just kidding!). They are admittedly not very adaptable, but I consider this nitpicking.

Don’t rely on the dictionary for everything! Join my campaign to expand the definition of life!

– Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

I agree that the dictionary definition is circular.

Life is a very complex subject.

Encyclopædia Britannica lists five definitions (abbreviated versions appear below):

Physiological: any system capable of performing a number of such functions as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and being responsive to external stimuli.

Metabolic: an object with a definite boundary, continually exchanging some of its materials with its surroundings, but without altering its general properties, at least over some period of time.

Biochemical: a system that contain reproducible hereditary information coded in nucleic acid molecules and that metabolize by controlling the rate of chemical reactions using proteinaceous catalysts known as enzymes.

Genetic: a system capable of evolution by natural selection.

Thermodynamic: a localized region where there is a continuous increase in order.

I’ve always been partial to the physiological definition myself. The biochemical definition seems too precise for me: does this mean life cannot exist without DNA or proteins? The genetic definition has the advantage that it would exclude a self-replicating machine, whereas the thermodynamic or metabolic definitions would not.

The encyclopædia articles list the exceptions/problems with the different definitions.

Dr Fidelius wrote:

I didn’t know that Alice and Humpty exchanged sounds, where does this occur?

Yes indeed, the definition of a word is dynamic, evolving over time to incorporate new nuances. The individual speaker at any moment in time can contribute to this process. However a word at best is nothing more than a trap with which to catch ideas. I want to make this particular trap bigger, by expanding the definition of “life”, so that I can catch a truly formidable beast of a concept.

I think that the current definition of life is very unclear, because it alludes to a deep (and afaik, hitherto unaddressed) philosophical matter which warrants much discussion.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

It appears to be a relatively clear class identification to me. It is no more circular than the definitions for rock, plant, mammal, etc.

We form classes either by strict delineation or by specification of traits. We say, X is alive because it possesses the traits we have specified for the category “life”. This is no more circular than saying a platypus is a mammal because it possesses the traits which we have determined define the class “mammal”.

You are more than welcome to abandon all class definitions from your language, but I think that you will be left with a tool which is less than ideal for communication with your fellow humans. There is, perhaps, more to the Humpty Dumpty passage than a simple parable of languages malleability.

The dictionary is not a bible or a law-book about the way things are. It does not contain definitions; it contains descriptions.

Here’s a handy example. Consider a typical dictionary entry:

Treating this as a description or suggestion, which is the way practically all people take it instinctually, you end up with a soufflé. Treating this as a definition, you could argue that a light, puffed-up baked dish consisting of egg whites, cheese, puréed vegetables, blackstrap molasses, crankcase oil, and hydrochloric acid is a valid soufflé.

(The example is adapted from: Martin, Robert M. *There are two errors in the the title of this book: A sourcebook of philosophical puzzles, paradoxes, and problems.*Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 1995. The definition is from: Costello, Robert B., ed. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1991.)

Go for it. Just don’t expect the rest of the English-speaking or scientific communities to have the slightest clue what you’re saying.

[quote]
I think that the current definition of life is very unclear, because it alludes to a deep (and afaik, hitherto unaddressed) philosophical matter which warrants much discussion.

[quote]

I assure you, it’s been addressed. Many, many times. By much better philosophers than I.

Howeverm good luck on your quest. Watch out for the windmills.

Chapter VI of Through the Lookingglass has a very long exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice. He interprets Jabberwocky for her. Forgive my erroneous citation earlier, I was working from memory.

Philosophy, eh? Well, by Phaedrus, my opinion of philosophy is on record somewhere hereabouts. I’ll not interrupt your word games again.

Cockles and mussles are alive. Until you eat them, then they’re just yummy.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What the hell is a cockle,anyway? Is it good with curdes and weigh?

I believe Cecil has tackled this question (of course): http://www.straightdope.com/columns/971212.html

But against all odds…
Spiritus Mundi wrote:

Ok, I was arguably wrong in saying that life was defined circularly. However I am of the opinion that all of the specified traits exhibited by “living” things seem arbitrary and are in fact possessed by other things which are not alive.

I think it is a matter of consciousness and intention: when I act, I act with an intention based in consciousness and shaped by desires. If I do something I make a conscious decision to do it, but could I have avoided this course of action? Was I propelled to this situation by the myriad interactions of cause and effect in my existence? If a leaf blows on the wind is it not propelled to this situation by the myriad interactions of cause and effect also? The soil is composed of matter which was once alive, so is oil and oil-based products like the plastic of your keyboard, paper comes from trees… Come to think of it the only things on this planet that are/were not alive are air, water and rock ie the elements.

Dr Fidelius, I share your obvious detestation (is that a word?) of semantics, but this is an exceptional case don’t you think?

While it is usually conceded that there are some non-living things that display some of the characteristics of life, they usually possess only some of the qualities, while we reserve the label of ‘alive’ for those things that possess them all, with perhaps one or two exceptions. That’s one reason there’s still some controversy with whether a virus is alive.

As to redefining the definition of ‘life’ to include everything, that would merely render the definition meaningless.

Well, I was going to take us on a magic bus ride down to the cellular level and propose that if an object didn’t have living cells that moved, breathed and divided, then it wasn’t alive but Ptahlis had to bring up that “virus” thing and shoot the shit out of an otherwise perfectly good post.

Damn, I hate people who use facts, It’s a piss-poor way to win a debate!

Weirddave also though this thread referred to Molly Malone:

"And she wheeled her wheelbarrow/ Through streets broad and narrow/ Crying “Cockles and mussels/ Alive alive-o”

A cockle is a shellfish, somewhere between a mussel and a small clam such as you would serve with spaghetti vongole.

They are served on the seashore in Wales and Ireland in a paper cone. They are indeed best when alive (like oysters) sprinkled with malt vinegar. Steamed with wine, garlic and tomato concasse is good too.

picmr

Are you saying that consciousness and intention is a necessary condition for life? Would you then conside a bacteria to be alive? How about a sponge? A clam?

As far as your statement <<all of the specified traits exhibited by “living” things … are in fact possessed by other things which are not alive>>, I disagree. Take for example the “physiological” definition of life I posted above. Can you name a non-living thing that can perform all these functions?
[ul][li]eating[/li][li]metabolizing[/li][li]excreting[/li][li]breathing[/li][li]moving[/li][li]growing[/li][li]reproducing[/li][li]being responsive to external stimuli[/li][/ul]

picmr,

Thank you for the info. Next time I’m in Ireland, I’ll have a cone 'o cockles and think of you.

Arnold: Fire. With the possible exception of metabolizing, It could be argued that fire does all the otheres.