What is life?

[Sonofason]

Why would you think that? Can you recall a life before your life?

You are not using the correct definition for life here. I am not talking about my life vs. some other life. I am not talking about some individual's life, as compared to some other individual's life. I am talking about life itself. I have explained this a few times now. I am a physical body that has life. When my mother and father conceived me, my personal existence began. My body is not the same body as my parents. I only have half of my mothers chromosomes, and only half of my fathers chromosomes. Therefore, our bodies are not the same identical bodies. We are genetically different living beings. However, the life that my body has is indeed the same identical life that each of my parents had. When the gamete from my father fused with the gamete of my mother my life as a separate individual living being began (in this case I am speaking of my life, and not the definition we are talking about here). So I can say that the life in me has existed long before it embodied me because I am speaking of life that is defined as the quality or something that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body or inanimate object and which also enables metabolism to take place within individual living beings. I do not believe that this word life, as I am defining it, has the ability to remember anything. But of course, living beings that do possess the quality that distinguishes vital and functional beings from dead bodies or inanimate objects capable of metabolizing food and energy can and do remember things, assuming of course that those beings also possess the necessary anatomical parts and faculty of mind required for remembering things.

Let me ask you this...Does motion exist?
Consider an object in motion. We know that an object that is in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. According to Wikipedia, in physics, motion is defined as a change in position of an object with respect to time. I personally see this definition as flawed. In reality, this definition is a definition for the word displacement. Motion is not displacement. Motion causes displacement.
An object at rest can only be put into motion if a force is applied to the object. So lets say that there is an object of some particular size that is at rest, and another object of identical mass is in motion and collides with the object that is at rest. If the object that is in motion strikes the object that is at rest (for lack of better words) perpendicular to the center of mass of the object that is at rest, the object that was at rest will be set into motion, and it's motion will be in the same direction as the object that was in motion; and the new velocity of the object that was at rest will be the same as the object that was in motion. And furthermore, the object that was in motion before it strikes the object that was at rest will come to rest instantly assuming the elasticity of both objects is zero.

So does motion exist?

The motion of the first object that was in motion is completely transferred to the object that was at rest. The net motion of the system is constant. Motion is like life. The objects are like the bodies of the living beings. The motion of the second object is the same identical motion of the first object. The only real difference is that the motion indwells a new body.

Read Issac Asimov's book, Life and Energy (1962), it will leave you questioning everything you thought you understood about biological life.

I already do question everything I thought I understood about biological life. But I'll try to take your advice.

What? You want to know how many viruses and bacteria exist in the world? That's what it sounds like you are asking. Life is not a "thing" it is a state of being for certain bio-chemical entities that we call life forms. I would say anything that has a means of replicating itself should probably be call "alive."

I'm not asking how many living organisms exist. You say life is not a thing...well that's for you to prove. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? So you believe virus' are alive? I can live with that. It really doesn't matter to me exactly what we consider to be alive. I want to know why we are alive. But I think I already know the answer to that question.

 

[Sonofason]

Were bacteria given temporary nostrils? This passage strikes me as a poetic description of how the author imagined (in his bronze age world), in the absence of any scientific understanding, how his god gave life to a man fashioned from clay.

That may very well be. The Bible suggest that life came from different places. When referring to the animals, God said let the earth bring forth life, and let the water bring forth life, but with regard to man, God gave Adam and Eve their life, and they had nostrils.

 

[viole]

And backing up somewhat, how much energy is required for life to exist? And how much matter is required for life to exist? I believe that you are making an assumption that life requires matter and energy to exist...can you prove that?

Yes, try to stay alive after a few months without eating.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Runewolf1973]

We have all heard it said that life begins at conception. Is that really true?
It seems to me that the life I have is exactly the same life that my mother and father had. It seems to me that the life in me has existed long before it embodied me.

This word, "life" that I am referring to here is best described as the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body or inanimate object, and not to be confused with other meanings of the word life which might include "the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something", or "a specific phase of earthly existence"

If life is something that exists, how many exist?

What distinguishes a functional being from a so-called inanimate object is it's ability to interact with it's environment in a complex manner. Life does not exist, it is merely a label we use to categorize certain complex interactions such as metabolism and reproduction which certain physical forms display. There is no unique "thing" or unique "force" that is life, it is all interactive, Fundamental Forces forces at work on an intricate level. Metabolism isn't life, reproduction isn't life, they are all complex interactions. What is lost when you "die" is the ability to interact in a complex manner because your form changes and therefore your ability to interact with your environment changes. The only difference between so-called life and so-called death is they are two different interactive states. We never stop interacting in some way with the universe. There is no true "life", nor is there true "death", or even consciousness for that matter...it is all interaction. I don't consider myself to be "alive", I am merely interacting in a complex manner via those Fundamental Forces which allow things to exist. There was never an emergence of life, there was an emergence of complexity. When this form (my present body) expires, my form will change and I will interact differently, that is all.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, try to stay alive after a few months without eating.

Ciao

- viole

I have to admit, you're right. For life to be perpetuated it requires energy and food. But that doesn't mean that the life that is in a father and mother is not the same identical life that is in his son or daughter.

 

[Sonofason]

What distinguishes a functional being from a so-called inanimate object is it's ability to interact with it's environment in a complex manner. Life does not exist, it is merely a label we use to categorize certain complex interactions such as metabolism and reproduction which certain physical forms display. There is no unique "thing" or unique "force" that is life, it is all interactive, Fundamental Forces forces at work on an intricate level. Metabolism isn't life, reproduction isn't life, they are all complex interactions. What is lost when you "die" is the ability to interact in a complex manner because your form changes and therefore your ability to interact with your environment changes. The only difference between so-called life and so-called death is they are two different interactive states. We never stop interacting in some way with the universe. There is no true "life", nor is there true "death", or even consciousness for that matter...it is all interaction. I don't consider myself to be "alive", I am merely interacting in a complex manner via those Fundamental Forces which allow things to exist. There was never an emergence of life, there was an emergence of complexity. When this form (my present body) expires, my form will change and I will interact differently, that is all.

I like the sound of your explanation, but I'm not really convinced that you're right. This complex interaction theory seems over-simplistic to me. I keep hearing people saying that life does not exist. Yet the word was developed to express the very real quality that exists that distinguishes vital and functional beings capable of metabolism from dead bodies or inanimate objects. Nevertheless, I liked your post.

 

[Sonofason]

Nick Lane, The Vital Question.

I liked it. Seems he is saying exactly what I am saying, that there is indeed only one life.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have to admit, you're right. For life to be perpetuated it requires energy and food. But that doesn't mean that the life that is in a father and mother is not the same identical life that is in his son or daughter.

I return to the metaphorical stepping into the same river twice...

The "life" of every existing creature on Earth can be traced in unbroken chain through ancestors back to the original life at least 3.8 billion years ago, but...

the individual iterations, the "bodies" of the ancestors through to us and to our descendants, grow and change over their lifetimes, and give life to the next generations...the atoms only temporarily take up residence, most only a few days, only a small percent remain over a period of years...likewise, most of the cells are replaced numerous times over a lifetime...

What is the same over the length and existence of a river? Not the water in it, as it is in constant flux and motion and constantly being emptied and replenished; the channel is the only "permanent" part of the river, and even it is can change and cease to exist at all.

What is the same over the length and existence of life? Not the matter in it...a pattern of chemical compounds activated into interaction with the environment by energy captured from the excess sunlight (or other sources of free energy)...if life is an emergent property (like a river), it is one that has existed continuously for billions of years, and through evolution taken on lots of different material forms (like river channels, oxbow lakes, etc)...the course of life is like the river channel, the substance of life the flow of water...what is life? it is like a river...

 

[Runewolf1973]

This complex interaction theory seems over-simplistic to me.

Yes, it is very simplistic, but the idea works.

 

[Sonofason]

I return to the metaphorical stepping into the same river twice...

The "life" of every existing creature on Earth can be traced in unbroken chain through ancestors back to the original life at least 3.8 billion years ago, but...

the individual iterations, the "bodies" of the ancestors through to us and to our descendants, grow and change over their lifetimes, and give life to the next generations...the atoms only temporarily take up residence, most only a few days, only a small percent remain over a period of years...likewise, most of the cells are replaced numerous times over a lifetime...

What is the same over the length and existence of a river? Not the water in it, as it is in constant flux and motion and constantly being emptied and replenished; the channel is the only "permanent" part of the river, and even it is can change and cease to exist at all.

What is the same over the length and existence of life? Not the matter in it...a pattern of chemical compounds activated into interaction with the environment by energy captured from the excess sunlight (or other sources of free energy)...if life is an emergent property (like a river), it is one that has existed continuously for billions of years, and through evolution taken on lots of different material forms (like river channels, oxbow lakes, etc)...the course of life is like the river channel, the substance of life the flow of water...what is life? it is like a river...

I think the river is a great analogy. Apparently, so did many of the authors of the Bible:

"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." (Revelation 22:1)

 

[Runewolf1973]

I return to the metaphorical stepping into the same river twice...

The "life" of every existing creature on Earth can be traced in unbroken chain through ancestors back to the original life at least 3.8 billion years ago, but...

the individual iterations, the "bodies" of the ancestors through to us and to our descendants, grow and change over their lifetimes, and give life to the next generations...the atoms only temporarily take up residence, most only a few days, only a small percent remain over a period of years...likewise, most of the cells are replaced numerous times over a lifetime...

What is the same over the length and existence of a river? Not the water in it, as it is in constant flux and motion and constantly being emptied and replenished; the channel is the only "permanent" part of the river, and even it is can change and cease to exist at all.

What is the same over the length and existence of life? Not the matter in it...a pattern of chemical compounds activated into interaction with the environment by energy captured from the excess sunlight (or other sources of free energy)...if life is an emergent property (like a river), it is one that has existed continuously for billions of years, and through evolution taken on lots of different material forms (like river channels, oxbow lakes, etc)...the course of life is like the river channel, the substance of life the flow of water...what is life? it is like a river...

Yes, even my idea can relate to the analogy of a river. Everything is interacting, changing, flowing and in a constant state of flux. Nothing in the universe stays the same, so what we call life should be no different. There is truly no such thing as "inanimate" objects since everything, even rocks and rivers are animated by the same Fundamental Forces of nature which allow for our own highly animated forms. Some things are just a little more animated than others. We call those most highly animated of forms "life".

What happens to a river when the water dries up? The river and the water does not cease to exist, it merely changes form along with everything else.

 

[OurCreed]

The Qur'an teaches that we humans had life before we even came to earth.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, even my idea can relate to the analogy of a river. Everything is interacting, changing, flowing and in a constant state of flux. Nothing in the universe stays the same, so what we call life should be no different. There is truly no such thing as "inanimate" objects since everything, even rocks and rivers are animated by the same Fundamental Forces of nature which allow for our own highly animated forms. Some things are just a little more animated than others. We call those most highly animated of forms "life".

Yes, the analogy works well...but your post here causes me to want to change the definition of life, such that it leaves out the word animated, because you are right in that there are definitions for the word animated which would pretty much be inclusive to all forms of matter and energy. And in my opinion, that only muddies the water. Perhaps the following definition would be more appropriate:
Life - A propagating force that causes and initiates chemical processes such as reproduction and metabolism which are essential for living organisms to exist.

There, now I am rid of that very unhelpful term animated.

What happens to a river when the water dries up? The river and the water does not cease to exist, it merely changes form along with everything else.

Actually, I would say that if a river dries up, it is no longer a river. Just as when a human being dies, he is no longer a human being.

 

[Sonofason]

The Qur'an teaches that we humans had life before we even came to earth.

As does the Bible.

Well, the Bible is my source for this sort of information, and I don't see it saying that. The Bible doesn't actually suggest that we had life before the womb, but it does seem to suggest that we did exist in some form before the creation of this earth. But from what I can tell, it only suggests that God knew us before we were born.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

I have a pretty good idea of what I am going to build tomorrow. I have conceptualized it. I've been thinking about it for a long time. At the present time it exists, but only in my mind. Tomorrow I will build it, and it will be exactly as I have conceptualized it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, the analogy works well...but your post here causes me to want to change the definition of life, such that it leaves out the word animated, because you are right in that there are definitions for the word animated which would pretty much be inclusive to all forms of matter and energy. And in my opinion, that only muddies the water. Perhaps the following definition would be more appropriate:
Life - A propagating force that causes and initiates chemical processes such as reproduction and metabolism which are essential for living organisms to exist.

There, now I am rid of that very unhelpful term animated.

The problem is that life is not a force, rather it is a highly animated, highly interactive state which matter can take given enough time and the right conditions. It is actually the term life that I find unhelpful and same with the term consciousness...they are both at the most fundamental level forms of interaction. I don't see the term animated as unhelpful at all...after all, I am an animist.

Actually, I would say that if a river dries up, it is no longer a river. Just as when a human being dies, he is no longer a human being.

Yes, but the point is that whatever matter or energy made up that river did not simply cease to exist, it changed form. It may cease to be a flowing river, but it does not cease to exist as matter, or energy, or interactive in some different way.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The Qur'an teaches that we humans had life before we even came to earth.

A lot of stuff in the Qur'an makes sense as does this teaching. In my own words, we were always interactive in some way, even before we appeared on the earth.

 

[Marsh]

That may very well be. The Bible suggest that life came from different places. When referring to the animals, God said let the earth bring forth life, and let the water bring forth life, but with regard to man, God gave Adam and Eve their life, and they had nostrils.

Implicit in this understanding of man's creation is perhaps the notion that only humans have souls? When life was breathed in, the soul was breathed in? Other life forms just magically popped into existence?

 

[Sonofason]

The problem is that life is not a force, rather it is a highly animated, highly interactive state which matter can take given enough time and the right conditions. It is actually the term life that I find unhelpful and same with the term consciousness...they are both at the most fundamental level forms of interaction. I don't see the term animated as unhelpful at all...after all, I am an animist.

Because you do not know exactly what life is, I'm quite certain you do not know whether life is a force or not...and neither does anyone else on this entire planet... except me perhaps. After all, I did just define the word for everyone to see with perhaps the most fitting and appropriate definition for the word that anyone has ever heard. Life is a propagating force that causes and initiates chemical processes such as reproduction and metabolism which are essential for living organisms to exist. Saying that life is simply a state or even a highly interactive state is quite meaningless and overly simplistic. A nuclear bomb is highly interactive, and I assure you nuclear bombs are not alive. But you, as well as I do well dismissing the modifying term animated from the discussion. Furthermore, I don't blame you for finding the term life unhelpful. After all how beneficial is a word when you don't really know what it means. Well congratulations, now you do.

Forces tend to put things into motion, and I do not see any feasible argument that could suggest that there isn't some form of motion taking place within living beings that can be attributed to anything other than life itself.

Human beings can go through many emotional states. We can be in a state of happiness, a state of sadness, a state of anger, etc. Human beings can exist in various physical states. We can be in a hungry state, tired, stressed, etc. The list of the states of being that a human being can exist in is extensive. But not life. There are only two descriptors that I can think of for forces. A force is either a weak force, or it is a strong force. Life is a force and so the force of life can only be weak, or strong, and that is indeed the case here.

Yes, but the point is that whatever matter or energy made up that river did not simply cease to exist, it changed form. It may cease to be a flowing river, but it does not cease to exist as matter, or energy, or interactive in some different way.

Rivers are large natural flows of water or other substance that crosses an area of land and goes into an ocean, a lake, etc. If it is not large, it would not be a river, but something else, like a stream, or a trickle. Water, or particular water molecules can certainly be a part of a river, but water itself is not a river. Lava itself is not a river. Evaporated water is not a river. It is water vapor. A dried up river bed is not a river. It is a dried up river bed.

Rivers can meander. Their paths can change. They are capable of meandering over time. But if they are not flowing, they are not rivers. If they are not rather large flows of a substance, they are not rivers either. You could cry rivers of tears. But once you stop crying there is no river anymore. The river no longer exists.

As far as the matter of the river, like water molecules, sure water can exists in different states. It can exist as a liquid, it can exist as a solid (ice) or it can exist in a gaseous state (water vapor). The matter of water does not exist in any other state than those that I have here mentioned. If you exert enough energy and break apart the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, the water you had no longer exists. The water is not in a different state. Oxygen is oxygen. It exists in three states as does water. It exists in no other state. Is the state of water in the form of rain any different than the state of water in the form of a river, or glass of water? I don't think so. The form that liquid water takes is not a state that it is in...well, not in my opinion anyway.

 

[Sonofason]

Implicit in this understanding of man's creation is perhaps the notion that only humans have souls? When life was breathed in, the soul was breathed in?

Perhaps...I really don't know. But I see you noticed a connection, so maybe you're right.

Other life forms just magically popped into existence?

I would not say anything magically pops into anything at all. God is the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator and King of everything that exists. Surely God is capable of creating elements with the ability to do whatever God commands them to do.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." (Genesis 1:11)
"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:12)

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..." (Genesis 1:20)
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:" (Genesis 1:21)

It is God who has created every living creature that has life. And He has apparently given earth and water the ability and responsibility to bring each one forth, each new creature, after its kind (evolution).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Because you do not know exactly what life is, I'm quite certain you do not know whether life is a force or not...and neither does anyone else on this entire planet... except me perhaps. After all, I did just define the word for everyone to see with perhaps the most fitting and appropriate definition for the word that anyone has ever heard. Life is a propagating force that causes and initiates chemical processes such as reproduction and metabolism which are essential for living organisms to exist. Saying that life is simply a state or even a highly interactive state is quite meaningless and overly simplistic. A nuclear bomb is highly interactive, and I assure you nuclear bombs are not alive. But you, as well as I do well dismissing the modifying term animated from the discussion. Furthermore, I don't blame you for finding the term life unhelpful. After all how beneficial is a word when you don't really know what it means. Well congratulations, now you do.

This is amazing!

I believe we have just witnessed the genesis of an idea that will win the Nobel Prize! No, really!

Philosophers for thousands of years, and scientists for a few hundred years, have been trying to decide what life is, and here in just five days we've seen someone--with only a little feedback from other non-experts--determine that life is REALLY a force (apparently like gravity, electromagentism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces) and not just an emergent property of matter under certain conditions, or a description of a very complex chemical and energetic phenomenon...No, LIFE IS A FORCE, and we know this because Sonofason just thought it up because he didn't like any of the suggests anyone else provided and of course he knows more than all the biologists in the world.

So--you have just asserted that life is a force, weak or strong (whatever that means). How are you going to go about proving it? Got any data to show that there is something identifiable that can be detected independently? You gonna submit this idea for publication in Science or Nature? Going to to get any feedback from, say, biologists or chemists or physicists who study life and living systems?

[Personally, I hope you are just trying to being humorous here, so that we can both just laugh about how silly all this is. If you are serious, however, I think you are very silly to assert that you have solved the question, "What is life?"]