- #1
Mattius_
- 8
- 0
What physical property separates the two?
Originally posted by Mattius_
What physical property separates the two?
Originally posted by Mattius_
What physical property separates the two?
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Doing my best to evade trying to
define "life" I would say that
what distinguishes that which is
alive from that which is dead for
me is that that which is alive
must be engaged to some
extent in the attempt to improve
or elaborate upon it's status quo.
That which is dead no longer exerts any effort of any kind on
its own behalf and is at the
mercy of any force that acts upon
it.
It is by virtue of this that I
would never consider rocks, or
minerals, or individual elements
to be possessed of life.
I agree with all except the first.Originally posted by heusdens
Life als is able of reproducing itself, in more or less the same form.
And life distinguishes itself from the environment.
And life needs to take in sources of energy to sustain itself, it needs a form of metabolism.
So does a computer virus. Which is why they are called 'virus'. Are computer viruses alive?Originally posted by heusdens
Life also is able of reproducing itself, in more or less the same form.
Yes, living beings are different from the environment by virtue of being alive. Like any fundamental principle, such as 'matter', 'space', 'time', life can only be defined tautologically.And life distinguishes itself from the environment.
So does my car.And life needs to take in sources of energy to sustain itself, it needs a form of metabolism.
"I was thinking about this earlier today when Larry Yaeger was talking about ‘what is life?’ and mentioned at the end something I didn’t know, about a special field of handwriting recognition. The following strange thought went through my mind: that trying to figure out what is life and what isn’t and where the boundary is has an interesting relationship with how you recognise handwriting. We all know, when presented with any particular entity, whether it’s a bit of mould from the fridge or whatever; we instinctively know when something is an example of life and when it isn’t. But it turns out to be tremendously hard exactly to define it. I remember once, a long time ago, needing a definition of life for a speech I was giving. Assuming there was a simple one and looking around the Internet, I was astonished at how diverse the definitions were and how very, very detailed each one had to be in order to include ‘this’ but not include ‘that’. If you think about it, a collection that includes a fruit fly and Richard Dawkins and the Great Barrier Reef is an awkward set of objects to try and compare. When we try and figure out what the rules are that we are looking for, trying to find a rule that’s self-evidently true, that turns out to be very, very hard.
Compare this with the business of recognising whether something is an A or a B or a C. It’s a similar kind of process, but it’s also a very, very different process, because you may say of something that you’re ‘not quite certain whether it counts as life or not life, it’s kind of there on the edge isn’t it, it’s probably a very low example of what you might call life, it’s maybe just about alive or maybe it isn’t’. Or maybe you might say about something that’s an example of Digital life, ‘does that count as being alive?’ Is it something, to coin someone’s earlier phrase, that’ll go squish if you step on it? Think about the controversial Gaia hypothesis; people say ‘is the planet alive?’, ‘is the ecosphere alive or not?’ In the end it depends on how you define such things.
Compare that with handwriting recognition. In the end you are trying to say “is this an A or is it a B?” People write As and Bs in many different ways; floridly, sloppily or whatever. It’s no good saying ‘well, it’s sort of A-ish but there’s a bit of B in there’, because you can’t write the word ‘apple’ with such a thing. It is either an A or a B. How do you judge? If you’re doing handwriting recognition, what you are trying to do is not to assess the relative degrees of A-ness or B-ness of the letter, but trying to define the intention of the person who wrote it. It’s very clear in the end—is it an A or a B?—ah! it’s an A, because the person writing it was writing the word apple and that’s clearly what it means. So, in the end, in the absence of an intentional creator, you cannot say what life is, because it simply depends on what set of definitions you include in your overall definition. Without a god, life is only a matter of opinion."
Originally posted by Another God
OK then, how about: "Degrees of complexity"
This is true but it can't be usedOriginally posted by Arawn
So living beings have a tendency to decrease entropy locally.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is true but it can't be used
to distinguish that which is alive
from that which is dead because
of all the non-living natural
forces a person could think of
that do the same thing: the wind
the tides and waves, rain, snow,
UV rays etc.
Well, if you use the same terms as you did with life, they do locally and temporarily decrease entropy. Eg. in the formation of charged clouds for storms. Or they work to drive life along by providing energy, even though the ultimate product is, as you say, an increase in entropy.Hmm, don't forces of nature more like increase entropy, since they are destructive forces?
Originally posted by Arawn
Hmm, don't forces of nature more like increase entropy, since they are destructive forces? Wind, rain and UV rays don't make buildings or maintain bodies; they erode them. They are tools of entropy a living being must fight against. From this point of view the natural forces seem like the exact opposite of the living.
The ability to pay taxes.Originally posted by Mattius_
What physical property separates the two?
I'm told that, some years ago, Steven Hawking pointed out that computer viruses, do, indeed, meet the criteria for life in a biological sense (at least one definition). I personally have no evidence of this. I would have to do a search.Originally posted by heusdens
Life als is able of reproducing itself, in more or less the same form.
What is the process by which a plant distinguishes itself from the environment? (Are you saying "self-awareness" here or am I way off base?)And life distinguishes itself from the environment.
When I mentioned natural forces IOriginally posted by FZ+
Well, if you use the same terms as you did with life, they do locally and temporarily decrease entropy. Eg. in the formation of charged clouds for storms. Or they work to drive life along by providing energy, even though the ultimate product is, as you say, an increase in entropy.
In things like ther formation of a snowflake for example, we see an increase in order from a natural process.
Originally posted by Tsunami
I'm told that, some years ago, Steven Hawking pointed out that computer viruses, do, indeed, meet the criteria for life in a biological sense (at least one definition). I personally have no evidence of this. I would have to do a search.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The tone of that post was frankly
exploratory; speculative, no
assertions were made.
Originally posted by Mentat
The statement was interrogative. He was requesting comment on the merit of his alternative - as indicated by his having used a question mark.
heh. I think he was using a definition that included stuff like viruses - not life as an entity but life-like behaviour. If one looks hard enough, I bet you can find analogies for metabolism etc everywhere. I am still firmly of the opinion that no clean line can be drawn because life doesn't exist in a special sense.Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Hawking seems to love to act like he knows things that he doesn't really. When was the last time that computer virus metabolized?
There are many characteristics that differentiate living organisms from non-living things. Here are five frequently asked questions about these differences and their answers:
The most fundamental characteristic of living organisms is the ability to carry out metabolic processes, such as obtaining and using energy, maintaining homeostasis, and reproducing.
Yes, some non-living things can exhibit certain characteristics of living organisms. For example, crystals can grow and reproduce, and viruses can replicate and evolve.
The main difference between living and non-living things is that living organisms are able to respond and adapt to their environment, while non-living things do not have this ability.
There are a few exceptions to these characteristics, such as mules (offspring of a horse and donkey) being unable to reproduce, and dormant seeds or spores that may not exhibit metabolic processes until conditions are suitable for growth.
While scientists have been able to create simple synthetic organisms, these are still based on existing living organisms and require a host organism to survive. The origin of life from non-living matter is still a mystery and an area of ongoing scientific research.