Life Does Not Exist

[Nakosis]

Definition of life:
1: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

(a) the capacity for growth: please look at (4) Living Organisms Grow.

(b) reproduction: please look at (5) The Art of Reproduction.

(c) functional activity: please look at (2) Metabolic Action, (3) Internal Environment Changes, (6) Ability to Adapt, (7) Ability to Interact, (8) The Process of Respiration, (9) Living Creatures Move.

(d) continual change preceding death: change including the death of cell, the reproduce of new cell, the increasing in size in the process of growth, that's what i can think of for now.

Another two characteristics of life please look at (1) Cells and DNA.

As @Aupmanyav pointed out there exists non-living replicating molecules which exhibit these same characteristics.

Of course this within the gray area of the definition.
The point being not to argue about the definition but to consider there is nothing special about "life" other than the complexity of the process.

 

[Pudding]

As @Aupmanyav pointed out there exists non-living replicating molecules which exhibit these same characteristics.

Of course this within the gray area of the definition.
The point being not to argue about the definition but to consider there is nothing special about "life" other than the complexity of the process.

Does the non-living replicating molecules you mention above exhibit ALL the same characteristics i mention earlier?

If it only exhibit SOME characteristics i mention earlier, then it doesn't fit the definition of the label "life". Therefor it's illogical if someone wants to label that "non-living replicating molecules" as life.

It's like red apple's colour is red and red apple is fruit, and red chili's colour is also red and red chili is also fruit. Then someone say that because red chili exhibit SOME characteristics of red apple, therefor red chili is red apple. That's illogical and unreasonable.

What someone does or thinks that will qualify them as regard life is special than non-life? Please be specific and precise.

 

[Nakosis]

Does the non-living replicating molecules you mention above exhibit ALL the same characteristics i mention earlier?

If it only exhibit SOME characteristics i mention earlier, then it doesn't fit the definition of the label "life". Therefor it's illogical if someone wants to label that "non-living replicating molecules" as life.

It's like red apple's colour is red and red apple is fruit, and red chili's colour is also red and red chili is also fruit. Then someone say that because red chili exhibit SOME characteristics of red apple, therefor red chili is red apple. That's illogical and unreasonable.

What someone does or thinks that will qualify them as regard life is special than non-life? Please be specific and precise.

They grow, they replicate, they compete over fuel/energy source, they mutate/change/evolve.

‘What it can teach us is that those functions that we see in living systems, they are not unique to life as we know it,’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...metabolism-for-the-first-time/4012152.article

Something I was not aware of prior to starting this thread.

 

[Pudding]

Everything in our world can be divided into two categories:
(1) thing consists of at least one cell
(2) thing NOT consists of at least one cell

List of things consists of at least one cell: Animal, plant, fungi, protist, monera, food made of plant or meat, wood doll, wood furniture, sweat, excrement, etc.

List of things NOT consists of at least one cell: Virus, molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, energy, H₂O, fire, metal, rocks, oxygen, light, etc.

In the macro world up until the micro world of cell, preceding death, things that consists of at least one cell like animal, plant, fungi, protist and monera, have the characteristics including capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, continual change preceding death, and carries DNA.
Here i label "thing consists of at least one cell" bubu.

In the macro world, we CANNOT observe MOST of the above characteristics on all the things NOT consists of at least one cell.
In the micro world, we CAN observe SOME of the above characteristics on things NOT consists of at least one cell like molecules and virus.
I DON'T label "thing NOT consists of at least one cell" bubu.

So the definition for bubu is: thing consists of at least one cell.

Maybe some people will ask why label it bubu? It doesn't matter, we can also label it bobo, bibi or something else. The label bubu/bobo/bibi is just a short term for "thing consists of at least one cell".

Now, the definitions of the label "alive" and "living" need a little bit adjustment.
The new definition for alive and living are: an adjective to describe thing which has the characteristics including capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
The definition of die: (of a person, animal, or plant and perhaps fungi, protist, monera, molecules and virus?) stop living.

Characteristics of Living Things:

(1) DNA
Cell carries deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA, the material made up of chromosomes that passes down genetic information which includes inherited traits of its lineages.

(2) Metabolic Action
For something to live, it must consume food and convert that food into energy for the body. All living entities employ interior chemical reactions to convert eaten food into energy through a form of digestion, and then transmit the energy extracted to the cells of the body. Plants and trees convert energy from the sun into food and absorb nutrients in the soil through their roots.

(3) Internal Environment Changes
Things that are alive make changes to their internal environment. Called homeostasis, this represents the actions a body takes to protect itself. For instance, when the body gets cold, it shivers to generate heat. All living things share this feature.

(4) Living Things Grow
To grow, a living thing must have cells that divide in an orderly way to create new cells. As cells grow, expand and divide, the creature becomes larger over time. Scientists use growth and development as a measure of alive.

(5) The Art of Reproduction
Living things grow and reproduce to make more living things like themselves. This can occur through asexual reproduction or by producing other living things through sexual reproduction. The new thing’s DNA is like that of the cell it came from.

(6) Ability to Adapt
Plants, animals, people, and even microorganism that live can adapt to the world around them. Adaptability involves the traits that help a living thing survive in its environment. One such trait includes the way different animal’s coats change through the seasons to make it hard for prey or predator to be seen.

(7) Ability to Interact
A living thing will interact with another living thing -- whether it is the same type of thing, a threat or a neutral thing, there is some form of interaction between the two. For example, flowers interact with bees by releasing pollen for it to be picked up and dispersed among female plants during reproduction. Plants like the Venus flytrap interact with nature by enclosing itself over flies, lizards and other edible insects that land within its grasp.

(8) The Process of Respiration
Respiration is more than just breathing. It represents the ability of a living thing to convert energy to feed the cells, using oxygen to break down sugars and produce carbon dioxide as a by-product expelled during exhalation. All living things have some form of respiration, though the process may differ between them.

(9) Living Things Move
To classify an thing as living, it must exhibit some form of movement. Though humans and animals obviously move, other items such as plants also move though it is hard to see without a time-lapse camera. Plants move their buds or leaves toward sunlight or away from shaded areas to promote growth.

A little edit from this link.
What Are the Ten Characteristics of Living Organisms?

Maybe some people will ask why label it alive or living? It doesn't matter, we can also label it abubu, abobo, bubing, bobing or something else. The label alive/abubu/abobo/living/bubing/bobing is just a short term for "an adjective to describe thing which has the characteristics including capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death".

In the macro world up until the micro world of cell, we can observe that preceding death some bubus like animal, plant, fungi, protist and monera are alive.

In the macro world, we can observe that all non-bubus have a little characteristics of the label "alive".
In the micro world, we can observe that some non-bubus like molecules and virus have some characteristics of the label "alive".

Does the above statements contain any errors?
Does the above statements help to draw a clear line to distinguish living thing from non-living thing?

 

[alypius]

I don't know about inherent but it is developed by large complex systems of atoms. At what point does this complexity become life?

If it is not inherent to atoms then why do some collections of atoms carry out these activities (eg. plants) but other collections of atoms do not (eg. stones or asteriods)?

 

[Nakosis]

If it is not inherent to atoms then why do some collections of atoms carry out these activities (eg. plants) but other collections of atoms do not (eg. stones or asteriods)?

IOW, why aren't my atoms part of a rock? Chance I suppose. They likely were at one time and likely will be again. At this moment in time they are not.

Chance meaning though it was all causal, it is far too complex to be able to predict how I got here or where my atoms might end up.

 

[Clara Tea]

I thought life was something like "self-directed motion" or some related definition. On top of that not every reality can be uttered/defined in my opinion, so it's not really a mark against a thing's existence for it to not be able to be exhaustively definable and only pointed around/at in my opinion.

The wisest minds throughout history have pondered the meaning and definition of life. Now it's my turn:

Life is a cereal that Mikey likes.

 

[Clara Tea]

IOW, why aren't my atoms part of a rock? Chance I suppose. They likely were at one time and likely will be again. At this moment in time they are not.

Chance meaning though it was all causal, it is far too complex to be able to predict how I got here or where my atoms might end up.

They say that only light elements, such as hydrogen, were made after the plasma ball of the Big Bang condensed into matter, and that all of the heavy elements (such as iron) were made in massive stars and spewed into space from supernova explosions. Thus, all of the heavy elements on earth are from such stellar explosive events. So, we are not now as we have been. Things have changed.

There is a rain cycle that moves water from the ocean to the clouds to the earth, then it runs into rivers and lakes, and eventually maybe back to the ocean again.

There is a dirt cycle, in which our flesh rots, becomes worm food, and the worms poop, and the poop fertilizes plants, which rot, and form dirt again.

All things seem to recycle.

The earth tends to be like a living organism (Gaia Theory) in that it moves nutrients and gases. It even reacts to problems, sometimes fixing problems. As poles melt, the weight redistributes, and that causes earthquakes and volcanoes which spew gases, soot, and chemicals into the air. Super-volcanoes toss those ingredients high into the stratosphere, and the acid rain (sulfides) reflect sunlight, and the ash blocks the sun....thus cooling a planet that was erupting because of melting ice. Thus, earth heals itself, much like the antibodies in us heal our bodies.

Perhaps the real source of life is atom and Eve?

 

[Clara Tea]

We identify life whenever we see its signature characteristics: collections of matter that are animate (at the subcellular level at least), channel energy (eat, absorb sunlight, maintain a far from equilibrium state = homeostasis), growth and development, reproduction and repair, adapt and evolve, made of cells, organic, chemically complex, etc..

It's not difficult to identify what objects possess these qualities and perform these operations, and we call those living.



We choose definitions so that they include all items that we wish to consider collectively and exclude others. I don't know that we decide what properties a living thing ought to have, but rather, what properties we find clustered together in predictable and distinct ways.



That's the case with abstractions in general. They have no existence outside of being an idea in a mind, but they derive from experiencing things outside of the mind that we would say do exist.



In the case of life, an abstraction, it exists only as an idea, but it refers to that collection of properties and activities that do exist. What we call living things exist, and we collect them under the abstraction life, because we find utility in considering that collection of things collectively and distinct from other things that don't get the name living. Maybe we want to consider the first thing that had these qualities, as when discussing the origin of life, or all of the extant ones as the tree of life.



If that's what the question asks, then no, the lines are abstractions, and we choose where to place them according to our needs. Definitions are ours to choose. We can divvy off groups for purposes of discussion according to our purpose.

Life must reproduce? Then a castrated man is not alive?

Evolve? Then the organisms that started life, if they are still around today, are not alive?

 

[Clara Tea]

Even if not conscious, rocks themselves don't stay still forever.

All things are dynamic, interrelated and intertwined.

Except those things that are not.

 

[Clara Tea]

Maybe it is a matter of dead hair, dead nails, and dead wood? Even that excludes the microbes inside the wood.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Except those things that are not.

I think of the atoms that make-up living organisms. Same as those in rocks and other inanimate matter including inanimate matter within living organisms. All essentially the same 'soup'.

It does at times causes me to think of 'Gaia', and 'life force' that atoms produce among the dynamics of change with rising and falling of form.

 

[Lain]

The wisest minds throughout history have pondered the meaning and definition of life. Now it's my turn:

Life is a cereal that Mikey likes.

I'll bet that's Cheerios (has nothing to do with being my personal favorite cereal).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We identify life whenever we see its signature characteristics: collections of matter that are animate (at the subcellular level at least), channel energy (eat, absorb sunlight, maintain a far from equilibrium state = homeostasis), growth and development, reproduction and repair, adapt and evolve, made of cells, organic, chemically complex, etc..

It's not difficult to identify what objects possess these qualities and perform these operations, and we call those living.

Life must reproduce? Then a castrated man is not alive?

No. Life can and does reproduce. Many living organisms do it. It's not necessary that every living organism reproduce for that to be a cardinal sign of life when it is evident.

Evolve? Then the organisms that started life, if they are still around today, are not alive?

Same answer.

Some non-life evolves as well - viruses. An entity (such as a virus) need not be alive to evolve, but living things do that as well, and thus is a feature of life.

 

[Revoltingest]

I found the second poll response fascinating: "No, it is a concept which only exist in our minds"

If you think it possible that life does not exist, which is the premise of the thread, after all, then it also seems that you think your mind has nothing to do with being alive.

One property of life to become sophisticated enuf
to ask really dumb questions about its own existence.
Simpler life forms have no such problem, & exist
in a state of shibumi.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think of the atoms that make-up living organisms. Same as those in rocks and other inanimate matter including inanimate matter within living organisms. All essentially the same 'soup'.

It does at times causes me to think of 'Gaia', and 'life force' that atoms produce among the dynamics of change with rising and falling of form.

We can take iron and silicon atoms, arrange them into a car, and drive away. Or, we can arrange them into an android or computer, and program it to be Artificially Intelligent (AI), and we could hold a conversation with it. Computer scientists found that it is too exhausting to program every possible detail in a chess program, but it is easier to get the computer to learn for itself, much as a baby does. So far, those self-teaching programs are superior. In time, our technology will get better. We are almost at the point where we can't tell the difference between talking to an AI computer or talking to a live person on the phone.

This begs the question, is AI alive? I suppose that procreation is just a matter of programming the android to make more of itself (as Commander Data did on Star Trek). Eating doesn't seem to be a need for such life, as long as energy can be provided. Excreting doesn't seem to be necessary.

I wonder what we would think if a ball of energy came up to us and started talking? That's basically what happened to Moses (burning bush). Maybe that would explain the burning bush of the bible? Maybe God is nothing more than energy (of some kind) that has somehow stored memories, and organized it's "mind" to access those memories?

Would it be possible for such an intelligent energy blob (God?) to be inventive (invent life?) and try to mimic its own intelligent by setting evolution on a path toward more intelligent creatures (our genesis?)?

While we can't prove the existence of God, we can't disprove it either. Therefore, we should be free to speculate that such a creature could exist, and might be construed as God.

 

[Clara Tea]

One property of life to become sophisticated enuf
to ask really dumb questions about its own existence.
Simpler life forms have no such problem, & exist
in a state of shibumi.

Dumb life (animals) don't destroy the planet "much." But, with all of his intelligence, man has made pollution, deforestation, forest fires, Global Warming, mass extinctions, and now threatens his own existence. And we call ourselves intelligent?

Theists say: "No problem....we're going to rapture to heaven, and so what if God made a natural paradise for us, we're done with it now, because the end of the world is nigh."

Well, if any of them try to rapture, I'm going to leap up, grab their ankles, and say, "hey, not so fast....get back here and fix this mess."

Apparently, intelligence gives us both curiosity and apathy, along with the seven deadly sins.

 

[Clara Tea]

No. Life can and does reproduce. Many living organisms do it. It's not necessary that every living organism reproduce for that to be a cardinal sign of life when it is evident.



Same answer.

Some non-life evolves as well - viruses. An entity (such as a virus) need not be alive to evolve, but living things do that as well, and thus is a feature of life.

Perhaps, you have defined "survival as a species" rather than "life?" In order for a species to survive, it must procreate (unless it lives forever). But, a castrated man (though not representative of the entire species) cannot procreate, so should not be considered alive (by the definition of life that includes procreation).

An amoeba procreates by splitting in half. Which half is the original? Are both halves new? How old is the original? Is that immortality?

Perhaps our genes are serially immortal (that is, we die, but our kids go on....our kids die, but their kids go on)?

I would imagine that amoebas have been around for a long time. While it is true that they evolved into other living organisms, some did not (their kids remained amoebas, as did their kid's kids). Thus, at some point amoebas stopped evolving. But, if evolution is a necessary requirement for life, could it be that the stagnation of evolution meant that they were no longer alive?

My point is that the definition of life is a very difficult one. It must be modified as we stretch the limits of what we consider life.

I could imagine, some day, going to a distant world, and finding life as we do not know it. It is easy to define life as we know it to be alive (my dog is alive....my cat is alive), but if we find some talking energy blob, we'll have to redefine our definition of life.

Could the burning bush of Moses be that energy blob? An angel? God?

 

[Revoltingest]

Dumb life (animals) don't destroy the planet "much." But, with all of his intelligence, man has made pollution, deforestation, forest fires, Global Warming, mass extinctions, and now threatens his own existence. And we call ourselves intelligent?

Theists say: "No problem....we're going to rapture to heaven, and so what if God made a natural paradise for us, we're done with it now, because the end of the world is nigh."

Well, if any of them try to rapture, I'm going to leap up, grab their ankles, and say, "hey, not so fast....get back here and fix this mess."

Apparently, intelligence gives us both curiosity and apathy, along with the seven deadly sins.

Life allows bad decisions.

 

[Clara Tea]

I'll bet that's Cheerios (has nothing to do with being my personal favorite cereal).

Cheerios are my favorite, too, because oats give lasting energy, but if the morsels aren't toasty, as they should be, you can't get a refund (loopholes in the guarantee).

I suggested it to a Brit, and he thought I was saying good bye (cheerio). While they say that wheaties are the breakfast of champions, there are several sports teams that can't eat them, because they choke when they get close to a bowl (rose bowl, etc).

I think of some religions, like the Amish (and to a lesser extent, the Quakers), who live abstemious lives. They "largely" shun modern conveniences. But they live smog-free, except what blows in from outside. They grow and cook their own foods, so everything is fresh and free from additives (which could be poisonous). They lead hard lives, but very rewarding. Just think of the fresh bread every morning. Milk fresh from the cows. Simmering stews filling the air with delicious vapors. Outside, there is glorious nature...fields of billowing wheat, and apple trees, and plum trees.

Comparing my city life to that, I really appreciate the view, even if fleeting.

Oddly, the Amish invented a very very efficient heater. But if they don't use electricity, why did they invent it? Their goal is to cut down pollution and energy waste.

I wonder if we could teach people about that kind of lifestyle if we asked everyone to go out into the country and live like that for a month or so. Live on a farm, eat fresh food, breath fresh air.

In the country, there are people enjoying nature. In the city, we have cereal killers (they don't like cereals).