I fear you protest tooo much..I see life as independent of outside assistance..it dont need a computer geek or engineer..Life is self sustaining, reproductive...tell me can any of your human engineered objects perform to that criteria?

viruses can sustain themselves and reproduce so they are defined as living....

"The issue here is that we can just 'decide' that viruses are alive."

Yes, I was trying to address that issue. You don't think I succeded, do you?

"Viruses are most likely a key to what was around before 'life'."

That is interesting. For the sake of argument, suppose that I agree.

...

Darn, I really thought I was addressing the issue. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

I don't see the relevancy of your question. Can people bend space and time? Can people replicate tectonic systems? It don't feel it really address what I'm talking about.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------



Viruses are not considered living. Virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are considered replicators.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------



It's not necessary -- but consider a virus combining with phospholipids in the sea which picked up useless RNA... Hmmm.

i was prevented from posting a moment ago so im trying again..Where does it claim viruses are not living?

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Whatever humans can or can not do they cant replicate the simplest of life forms.

I've actually covered it pretty simply in my fist post. The fact that we have constructed something that 'achieves' life is really missing the point because what constitutes life is arbitrary by this definition:

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision

(Although here are some examples: Self-replicating machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Evolvable hardware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Quantum computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , there are plenty of examples of integrated neuron/hardware systems responding to stimuli, systems that regulate outside forces, and new systems that are capable of adaptation if you look for them)

We made observations on what we think is common place in this system -- made possible because the system builds on itself. The line that divides a non-living object with a living one is blurred as can be seen when considering the qualities of a virus.

Most people consider 'life' to have special purpose and thus needing some continuance after it is dead or special treatment. 'Life' is the center of much philosophical debate unlike the 'special purpose' of an orbital system, computer system, solar system, or ecosystem.

You, the rock, and the sun, at the most fundamental level, are constructed of the very same building blocks. So at which point does something becoming 'living' and worthy of respect?

It is no secret that objects have properties that are constituents of their smaller parts. In essence, you get a concrete building having made it of concrete, or you get a mass of metal, having made it from metals.

No matter which case you can think of, in every situation, the most basic fundamental parts of the universe are non-living.

We are simply deceiving ourselves by considering ourselves as 'separate' from other objects in the universe.

We see through the eyes of a biological system which is required to interact with the environment to continue and, most understandably but not justified, we have a bias of judging the universe around us through a 'life' perspective.

We have taken for granted that we are 'alive' and special, when we are just is much like the planet, its systems, or the flower outside.

Since people are making the claim that life exists, can anyone prove that the qualities that make up life are not arbitrarily decided?

Life is no different than notions of justice, right, wrong, or favorite color. We have invented a little bubble that we 'live' in.

Are Viruses Alive?

You may be right about human lack of abilities, but I still do not understand how that is relevant to what I'm discussing.

What is this paragraph's special purpose?

Are you talking about the debate on abortion now? At what point? What do you want, a specific time for the first life on Earth?

If I have two apples and I give you one, how many apples do I have? What happens though if you plant an apple seed and water it? A tree!!! I was expecting a mass of apple seeds.

I'm sorry. I can't respond to this because all I see is letters and individually letters don't communicate any idea to me.

Yes. "deception" "separate". Hmm. Ponder that.

What do you mean "biological system"? This is arbitrary. If we did not see through the eyes of this arbitrary construct, we wouldn't have to think of things around us as "living" or "non-living"

Yes. For too long has this belief gone unchallenged. Cats are not special. Sure, you might say they're cute when they're playing with balls of yarn, but "alive", "special"? Cute I will give you. Alive? Special? Give me a break.

It dawned on me. Riordan, I understand you to say that life is a mystical concoction we manufacture in our bubbles because, because... actually, fill me in here.

Anyway, speaking for myself. I'm not a mystic. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were the mystic for denying the existence of life. Weird.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

Life is a difficult concept to define. I don't understand it.

What is more like a cat, a dog or a rock?
What is more like a mammal, a reptile or a whirlwind?
What is more like an animal, a plant or cave system?

What do animals and plants have in common that makes them more similar to each other than to cave systems, whirlwinds, and rocks?

Do you see my point? I'm not being mystical.

dictionary.com defines Life this way:

1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Sounds good to me. I'm no biologist, admittedly. Does it all sound kind of vague? Yes. Change? reproduction? adaption? But so what? It is very abstract. I would be surprised if it didn't sound vague to me.

Actually people are vibrating and spinning. You are 99.9999% empty space -- which I can prove mathematically if you are interested -- which leaves plenty of room for these atoms to 'spin'. If these things are spinning at the near the speed of light, its appearance to us would be spherical dots that make us up (similar to pixels on a screen). Why aren't we spinning? It is happening at a small level so that we cannot see it. The fact that you cannot 'see' it happen is really invalidated and my premise still true.

Instead of "living", use the words "Alive" or "Not Alive".

I am jumping in here so if I repeat something please forgive me guys

A candle or a crystal could be said to be alive in some sense, it is our consciousness that subjectively assures we are living beings

Is a rock alive, it might contain vibratory images and memories about its surroundings.

The universe might be alive and conscious , a great brain of a colossal entity in which we are just quantum particle flashing into existence and decaying and vanishing in an infinitesimal moment compared to its huge live span

In a sense anything subject to entropy could be considered alive

Considered is the word Alan.We are determining the difference and life is not a mystical explanation.We must deal in certainty not romantics otherwise we are capable of making any claim we wish.EG....Everything is dead till its alive, gods life is an illusion for those who seek sanctuary,we must die before we can experience life..Life is not dead.All these statements dont ask the fundamental scientific reason why we ask what is life what is living.

Tell me, in general, if every part of something has property, p, must that something also have property, p?

The fact remains that not everything is alive or dead. That was the original claim.

The only things that actually exists in reality are super strings, do I have you right?