- #1
Pythagorean
Gold Member
- 4,401
- 313
or are we just a collection of living things (i.e. cells) working in coordination?
I would say a living thing. All of our "parts" work together with a central mind in control. A colony of ants would be a "collection of living things working in coordination".Pythagorean said:Are we a living thing, or are we just a collection of living things (i.e. cells) working in coordination?
octelcogopod said:I think it's somewhat comparable to say a piano.
Is there really a piano or is it a bunch of strings and wood blocks.
I mean, we can say this about anything basically.
I see a human as a complete life. If we go by the wikipedia definition of life, which includes reproduction, response to stimuli and so forth, we see that we need to include a lot of different things that individually would not be life.
Therefore I think a life is a compound of different functions, like the ones mentioned on wikipedia..
But on a more analytical level, if I cut off my arm, that arm could say to be alive at least for a period, so that brings up some interesting questions like which things define life.
But I don't know exactly what you meant in your original post so won't get into it.
Pythagorean said:I'd have to disagree about it being like a piano. Pianos have no fractal nature to them whatsoever. Life does. Living cells are also defined as living, just like you and me. Piano strings are not defined as pianos.
out of whack said:...this doesn't hold for the cells themselves: their components are not considered alive.
like living humans, cells are defined as living, but not as human. Like inert objects, piano strings are defined as inert but not as pianos
No, I think that's enough analogyzing. Staying with your OP where you ask if we are a living thing or a collection working in coordination, under the point of view that life is a process then both points of view are not mutually exclusive. Each cell undergoes a process we call life. The collection of cells that form a human also undergoes a process we call life. We are both a living thing AND a collection of living things. One does not preclude the other.Pythagorean said:If you'd like to carry the analogy...
Pythagorean said:or are we just a collection of living things (i.e. cells) working in coordination?
Moridin said:A well-rounded operational definition of life could be "a self-sustaining chemical system that can undergo Darwinian evolution".
out of whack said:No, I think that's enough analogyzing. Staying with your OP where you ask if we are a living thing or a collection working in coordination, under the point of view that life is a process then both points of view are not mutually exclusive. Each cell undergoes a process we call life. The collection of cells that form a human also undergoes a process we call life. We are both a living thing AND a collection of living things. One does not preclude the other.
Pythagorean said:I guess I'm trying to find the difference between obvious biological systems and systems like our planet. I doubt evolutionary processes apply to Earth at all though. It can be said that it has changed with time, but as far as we can tell, it does this in accordance with the physical laws that govern it. But how are life systems different (given that the chemical system is fundamentally a physical system) than other cycles that exchange energy and chemistry. For example, would it be possible for non-biological systems to experience consciousness? Could we even answer such a question?
Pythagorean said:or are we just a collection of living things (i.e. cells) working in coordination?
Moridin said:1) That's because the Earth is not alive?
2) If consciousness is seen as also a biological process or metaprocesses nested within other biological processes, then the sort of consciusness we experience would be improbable given non-biological processes.
Kenny_L said:Does 'we' include frogs, bacteria, worms, plants etc too?
octelcogopod said:Hence my piano example.
Humans may not be a living thing as a whole, that may be a thing we apply to ourselves by means of our brain, just like the piano is not really a piano, it's a collection of it's component parts.
But either way it gets kind of messy in my head when I think about this.
Like for instance how do we define what a living things boundaries go?
We know that the body is contained within the skin, so is the skin the boundary of the living entity?
Can the skin be defined as the life, and everything within it is alive?
Because in that case we just have to say that everything contained within a container of sorts that belongs to the entity, is as a whole a living thing.
I don't know if you want to get this overly complicated about it though.
A living thing, also known as an organism, is a complex, self-sustaining system that exhibits the characteristics of life, such as the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.
The basic building blocks of living things are cells. All living organisms are made up of one or more cells, which are the smallest unit of life and carry out all the necessary functions for an organism to survive.
Cells are coordinated within a living organism through various systems, such as the nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. These systems work together to regulate and coordinate the activities of cells and ensure the proper functioning of the organism as a whole.
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the genetic material that carries the instructions for the development and functioning of all living organisms. It is responsible for passing on traits from one generation to the next and plays a crucial role in the coordination and regulation of cellular activities.
Yes, non-living things can exhibit some characteristics of living things, such as growth, movement, and response to stimuli. However, they cannot carry out all the necessary functions for self-sustaining life, such as metabolism and reproduction, and therefore are not considered living organisms.