"Life comes from Life"!

[Ouroboros]

An amino acid on a meteorite is not alive. It is absurd to say "everything is alive". If you take that view, what is meant when we say something dies?

What we mean with life, death, alive, etc are definitions of states, but everything is moving, changing, and some level of "alive".

Are microbes alive or dead? Are virus alive or dead? The line gets very blurry and what's meant with "alive" when you go deep into how it works. The problem arise when we have statements like "life comes form life" and saying things like DNA or cells or the chemical process that produce life isn't alive in some form itself.

We eat dead things, that our body breaks down, and becomes new cells in our body, which then are "alive", but only because of how it's expressed in its new form. Things didn't stop being the physical things they were. It's all really about perspective.

And I don't find it absurd at all.

 

[Audie]

And water... lots of water. Most of our body is water.

Yes, every day you drink some water molecules that
were once **** by Joan of Arc

 

[Audie]

An amino acid on a meteorite is not alive. It is absurd to say "everything is alive". If you take that view, what is meant when we say something dies?

What is meant by it?

 

[exchemist]

What we mean with life, death, alive, etc are definitions of states, but everything is moving, changing, and some level of "alive".

Are microbes alive or dead? Are virus alive or dead? The line gets very blurry and what's meant with "alive" when you go deep into how it works. The problem arise when we have statements like "life comes form life" and saying things like DNA or cells or the chemical process that produce life isn't alive in some form itself.

We eat dead things, that our body breaks down, and becomes new cells in our body, which then are "alive", but only because of how it's expressed in its new form. Things didn't stop being the physical things they were. It's all really about perspective.

And I don't find it absurd at all.

The distinction between alive and dead is pretty important if you are a doctor or, dare I say, one of his or her patients.

I know it's easy to find borderline cases that are not easy to classify as unambiguously "alive" or "dead", but that does not make the distinction meaningless.

 

[Ouroboros]

The distinction between alive and dead is pretty important if you are a doctor or, dare I say, one of his or her patients.

It's a specific application of the term "dead" or "dies" in that case. Applying to human life functions specifically, but not life in a general term.

Do doctors care for the life and death of a microbe? Why not? It's not important, but it's there as well. The beginning and end of a chemical bond is not considered "life" or "death" by us, but it's only by terminology. The start and end of changes is always there.

We also use the term "live" and "dead" for computers, electrics, and other things that are in our normal essence "dead matter". It's just terms of "active" and "active" in some specific context.

I know it's easy to find borderline cases that are not easy to classify as unambiguously "alive" or "dead", but that does not make the distinction meaningless.

Well, we different in how we view things. I'll just leave it at that. I'm a pantheist and consider everything connected and at different level of being alive.

 

[Audie]

The distinction between alive and dead is pretty important if you are a doctor or, dare I say, one of his or her patients.

I know it's easy to find borderline cases that are not easy to classify as unambiguously "alive" or "dead", but that does not make the distinction meaningless.

Doctors do "legally dead" which is a term of convenience.

There remains a great deal of life in a body, long after
"death".

Nobody said distinctions ars meaningless, but, otoh, as nobody can
actually define life, nor find the boundary between life and non
life, an awful lot of the supposed distinction is meaningless.

 

[Audie]

Well, we different in how we view things. I'll just leave it at that. I'm a pantheist and consider everything connected and at different level of being alive.

Oh? And how would YOU define life?

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh? And how would YOU define life?

Which kind?

Life in general? Everything is in some form or another.

Human life? When the functions of being human is active.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The scientific method applied to abiogenesis has shown that the scientific method has not come even close to explaining or demonstrating abiogenesis.

That was the case with batteries, chemistry, organ transplants, disease, and many things at one time or another that we now have successful applications for. At one time or another many things evaded application of the scientific method and now they do not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which kind?

Life in general? Everything is in some form or another.

Human life? When the functions of being human is active.

What are the functions of being human? Surely some of them are unnecessary in defining life.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Don't look now.....but your body is in the process of dying as you speak, it's just a matter of time that's all. What ?, don't believe it ? Then why do you need to bath on a regular basis ? Is it not because your body is ROTTING, in a constant state of decomposition, just like everything else around you in this flesh ?

 

[Ouroboros]

What are the functions of being human? Surely some of them are unnecessary in defining life.

The exact functions of what makes a human alive or dead is part of why sometimes it's been hard for medicine to deal with treatments of illnesses. For instance, there's a method of "killing" the patient to do surgery and they're basically clinically dead for a long period during the surgery, and then brought to life again. But I think the basic concept, which can and have been challenged, is having a heart beat, having brain functions, and some other things like that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The exact functions of what makes a human alive or dead is part of why sometimes it's been hard for medicine to deal with treatments of illnesses. For instance, there's a method of "killing" the patient to do surgery and they're basically clinically dead for a long period during the surgery, and then brought to life again. But I think the basic concept, which can and have been challenged, is having a heart beat, having brain functions, and some other things like that.

I agree it is difficult to refine a definition of life. My point was that there are functions of being human that stem from our being alive, but are not necessary to defining whether we are living or dead. I am 'functioning' on this forum, but ceasing to do so would not mean my life was over in a biological sense.

 

[exchemist]

It's a specific application of the term "dead" or "dies" in that case. Applying to human life functions specifically, but not life in a general term.

Do doctors care for the life and death of a microbe? Why not? It's not important, but it's there as well. The beginning and end of a chemical bond is not considered "life" or "death" by us, but it's only by terminology. The start and end of changes is always there.

We also use the term "live" and "dead" for computers, electrics, and other things that are in our normal essence "dead matter". It's just terms of "active" and "active" in some specific context.


Well, we different in how we view things. I'll just leave it at that. I'm a pantheist and consider everything connected and at different level of being alive.

All language is "only terminology". These terms have a meaning, for a purpose.

I have no issue with a pantheist embracing a philosophy that says it is all matter of degree and that there is a spectrum from inanimate to animate, but I do dig my heels in at any suggestion that the distinction between alive and not alive has no meaning. Just as, in the spectrum, the existence of "orange" does not mean "yellow" and "red" are meaningless. Doctors try to keep their patients alive and know very well what the vital signs are. They also know a bacterium or fungus is alive too, and that a virus can reproduce even though it has to hijack another living cell to do so. Unlike a hospital trolley, say.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I agree it is difficult to refine a definition of life. My point was that there are functions of being human that stem from our being alive, but are not necessary to defining whether we are living or dead. I am 'functioning' on this forum, but ceasing to do so would not mean my life was over in a biological sense.

"Life" is defined as having conscious awareness. Every single quantum particle of matter has some level of conscious awareness, therefore…."everything is alive". What separates "life forms" is conscious SELF awareness, that's all.

 

[Ouroboros]

I agree it is difficult to refine a definition of life. My point was that there are functions of being human that stem from our being alive, but are not necessary to defining whether we are living or dead. I am 'functioning' on this forum, but ceasing to do so would not mean my life was over in a biological sense.

Because it's different categories.

Being alive biologically is specific to you in body, in person, while being "alive" on board on a forum is your presence and activity on the forum.

The thing is that as humans we use the term "alive" and "dead" on many different levels, both specific and generally, and when it's specific, we mean specific categories that we apply the to and specific properties and attributes that make that category alive or dead.

 

[exchemist]

"Life" is defined as having conscious awareness. Every single quantum particle of matter has some level of conscious awareness, therefore…."everything is alive". What separates "life forms" is conscious SELF awareness, that's all.

This is woo. What on earth do you mean by asserting that a quantum particle has a level of conscious awareness? Do I smell Deepak Chopra?

 

[Ouroboros]

All language is "only terminology". These terms have a meaning, for a purpose.

I have no issue with a pantheist embracing a philosophy that says it is all matter of degree and that there is a spectrum from inanimate to animate, but I do dig my heels in at any suggestion that the distinction between alive and not alive has no meaning. Just as, in the spectrum, the existence of "orange" does not mean "yellow" and "red" are meaningless. Doctors try to keep their patients alive and know very well what the vital signs are. They also know a bacterium or fungus is alive too, and that a virus can reproduce even though it has to hijack another living cell to do so. Unlike a hospital trolley, say.

I'm not saying they don't have meaning, but rather they have different meaning depending on context. When it's applied as an argument to say that life can't come from no-life, that's when dig my heels in myself. Simply because it's mixing specific application of the meaning with generic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Life" is defined as having conscious awareness. Every single quantum particle of matter has some level of conscious awareness, therefore…."everything is alive". What separates "life forms" is conscious SELF awareness, that's all.

I am unfamiliar with this definition. How is consciousness and awareness determined for the quantum realm?

The context here is to life in the biological sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not saying they don't have meaning, but rather they have different meaning depending on context. When it's applied as an argument to say that life can't come from no-life, that's when dig my heels in myself. Simply because it's mixing specific application of the meaning with generic.

Angiogenesis is a scientific approach to learn how biological life arose. In the context of biology, life arose from non-living matter.