How do you define "alive"?

[short recoil]

Stuff is alive when it has purpose.

Random molecules, regardless of complexity, have no intention.

Cells, on the other hand, have purpose - to survive

I'm afraid i cannot agree with that.
Truley no particle "knows what it wants to do"
Our thoughts and choices are a result of the laws of physics governing the reactions between particles.
In essense with your theory a lava flow is "alive" because it would flow out of the surface as predicted.

Life is simply just another part of the earth, and while it is increadibly complex..what do you expect from time?

 

[jondy]

I'm afraid i cannot agree with that.
Truley no particle "knows what it wants to do"
Our thoughts and choices are a result of the laws of physics governing the reactions between particles.
In essense with your theory a lava flow is "alive" because it would flow out of the surface as predicted.

Cells do have purpose in the sense that it's in their interest to survive. Lava flows a certain way because that's what it has to do; but living matter goes against these rules ( looking at the situation with naked-eye predictability ) because it wants to survive. This is what I mean by purpose.

Yeah, at a base level, everything is predictable, and the concept of random is flawed because of the inherent ( if infinitely complex ) predictability of consequences from base level to huge probability structures ( though quantum theory throws a spanner in the works ). So you could argue that nothing is alive, and that everything is worked out from time zero.

This is a viewpoint I agree with, but for the purposes of living a full and contented life I ignore it, because the concept is belittling and doesn't make anyone feel good.

Or whatever

 

[PvtRyan]

You're seeing it the wrong way around. Something stays alive because it has an interest to survive, not the other way around (it has an interest to survive and therefor it survives) it's merely logic, natural selection, there's no 'purpose' that interest in surviving has. A human that's apathetic to it's own life would quicly be filtered out by natural selection, it wouldn't survive. A human which does care about its existence survives. It's logic, has nothing to do with 'purpose'.

OT: The definition of 'alive'? I don't think there's one closing definition, are virii alive? And if a human is alive, and the organs they are composed off are, and the cells that make up those organs are, aren't parts of those (nucleus, ribosomes etc) also alive? DNA? Atoms?

You could also argue life's a system composed of parts that works together to accomplish tasks. But that would also make machines alive. My best definition would be "organic matter that makes up a system that accomplishes tasks". But that excludes future stuff like virtual life (a computer virus is no less alive than a real life virus) or robotic.

Maybe nothing is 'alive'. Maybe something 'alive' is just matter with complex interactions. I mean, galaxies and the stars it's made up out of are very complex and have complex interactions, but no one would call them alive. Same goes for the Earth with it's complex processes in the atmosphere and ground.

Would we call silicium based lifeforms on an alien planet that's basically just a pillar 'alive'?

So my final description of 'alive' would be that it's a tag that we place on complex systems that we deem worthy of it and there's no black and white definition of 'life'.

 

[jondy]

You're seeing it the wrong way around. Something stays alive because it has an interest to survive, not the other way around (it has an interest to survive and therefor it survives) it's merely logic, natural selection, there's no 'purpose' that interest in surviving has. A human that's apathetic to it's own life would quicly be filtered out by natural selection, it wouldn't survive. A human which does care about its existence survives. It's logic, has nothing to do with 'purpose'.

Really good point. *hits head against wall* :upstare:

 

[PvtRyan]

Really good point. *hits head against wall* :upstare:

Sarcasm?

 

[jondy]

Not at all :thumbs: and if you were being sarcastic saying that I was being sarcastic you've rendered this post unnecessary. Great. /sarcasm

 

[Apos]

I'm not a doctor. Nor do i do medical negligence. I knew that a zygote was somewhere early in the piece. But the whole zygote question is smoke and mirrors in relation to abortions. Its not zygotes being aborted, but much more developed embryos.

Ok so lets see just how early in the process the zygote is:

So a zygote is a fertilised egg up to the first cell division?

I think we safely say, that most abortions, occur after the first cell division.............

Sure, but the embryonic stage doesn't change much right away either: you're still talking about, at best, layers of fairly undifferentiated cells. No brain, no nervous system: still just the raw materials and instructions, playing themselves out, but yet to even give much in the way of functionality.

And that's beside the point. The claim was made that it's all begun right at conception. So it's perfectly legitimate to talk about zygotes.

 

[Raziaar]

www.dictionary.com

Anyway, bacteria and viruses etc. Things that are incapable of thought, they're not smart enough to enjoy life, they just serve a purpose; surviving. But a egg with a flat headed tadpole in it has a potential.

Well. At the beginning most stage of conception, I don't believe the egg has much of a brain to enjoy life. Yes, they do have a potential life, and I really am quite against abortion altogether except in rape cases... but what i'm saying... if there's EVER a time to abort, its at the earliest earliest stages before that thing keeps multiplying and forming cells that start resembling a baby.

 

[Apos]

The whole concept of "potential" life is nonsense. Everytime you don't knock up your fertile girlfriend you are preventing a potential life from ever developing.