What is life?

[Sonofason]

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?

 

[allfoak]

There is no limit to how many.
I see no reason to limit life.

 

[HonestJoe]

Scientifically it's long being recognised that formally defining "life" is actually very difficult. While there are lots of things we agree are alive and lots of things we agree aren't alive, actually defining the line in a manner than can be applied in any circumstances seems impossible.

 

[Sonofason]

Scientifically it's long being recognised that formally defining "life" is actually very difficult. While there are lots of things we agree are alive and lots of things we agree aren't alive, actually defining the line in a manner than can be applied in any circumstances seems impossible.

I'm just saying, this life we all have is the same life. It is ancient. There is no new life. All life on this planet is very old life, that has been perpetuated through various living bodies throughout all of history. No person alive knows of a new instance of life. All life comes from previous life, and so far, it has not ceased.

 

[bobhikes]

There is no limit to how many.
I see no reason to limit life.

There is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe. Life is made from both why wouldn't it be limited. But more interesting for me is life itself a thing.

 

[Sonofason]

There is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe. Life is made from both why wouldn't it be limited. But more interesting for me is life itself a thing.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether or not you are alive or not. But let me ask you a question, when you die, what exactly is lost? If life is not lost, then what is the difference between you being alive and being dead?

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?

 

[allfoak]

There is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe. Life is made from both why wouldn't it be limited. But more interesting for me is life itself a thing.

The OP said that that was not the definition of life that we are talking about.
I understand the difference i think.
One is the material and the other is what seems to be an underlying presence that some call consciousness.

 

[Sonofason]

There is no limit to how many.
I see no reason to limit life.

There is no limit to how many.
I see no reason to limit life.

I would like to remind you of the definition of life that I am referring to here...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. If you are suggesting that there is more than one life in existence, then I'm quite sure you are using the wrong definition.

 

[allfoak]

I would like to remind you of the definition of life that I am referring to here...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. If you are suggesting that there is more than one life in existence, then I'm quite sure you are using the wrong definition.

i understand your definition i believe.
I too would say there is only one life.

The only difficulty with the idea is that now we have to account for all of the different entities with their own consciousness.
This can be done easily enough of course by understanding that there is one source that all will return to eventually.
But it is not easily understood that there is a divine pattern that replicates itself holograhically in everything that exists.
And that in many ways not only are we separate from that life but it does not even know most exist.

Paradox, life is a paradox.

 

[Sonofason]

i understand your definition i believe.
I too would say there is only one life.

The only difficulty with the idea is that now we have to account for all of the different entities with their own consciousness.
This can be done easily enough of course by understanding that there is one source that all will return to eventually.
But it is not easily understood that there is a divine pattern that replicates itself holograhically in everything that exists.
And that in many ways not only are we separate from that life but it does not even know most exist.

Paradox, life is a paradox.

nice...i can agree with that.

 

[Sonofason]

i understand your definition i believe.
I too would say there is only one life.

The only difficulty with the idea is that now we have to account for all of the different entities with their own consciousness.
This can be done easily enough of course by understanding that there is one source that all will return to eventually.
But it is not easily understood that there is a divine pattern that replicates itself holograhically in everything that exists.
And that in many ways not only are we separate from that life but it does not even know most exist.

Paradox, life is a paradox.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Our bodies have many parts. I believe it is fairly safe to say that each part of the body doesn't have a clue with regard to the existence of the other parts. But the mind which seems to be in control of the body, knows very well each of the parts and is in nearly continuous communication with each part at all times, whether or not we ourselves are aware and conscious of that communication or not. The trickier concept would be distinguishing the brain from the mind.

 

[Jabar]

a test.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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.
If life is something that exists, how many exist?

I think it depends on where you draw the line. When a bacteria or other single-celled organism grows to the point that it divides into two, is that a separate life? You seem to be saying No, that is a single life now in two "bodies." And if they divide again, that is still the same life, that has grown and divided into more cells. but others could argue that once the division is complete, they are separate life forms.

To me, it might be similar to the old philosophical question, "can you step into the same river twice?" What makes a river the same or different at different times? What is "a" river, given that the water in the river is constantly moving, it's level and speed changes over time, etc.? What makes you different at different times? What is "you," given that each individual is a flow of matter and energy that is in constant flux?

Anyway, in western thought at least, a human (or other eukaryotic life that uses sexual reproduction) "starts" when gametes from the parents (via meiosis) come together and begins to grow through cell division into a unique individual. Given the line of thought that you seem to be proposing, that is in that sense an artificial distinction. Yet, it also reflects the reality that genetically, the offspring is only 50 percent related to each parent, and is therefore "different" to some degree from the "offspring" of bacteria or other unicellular forms reproducing through mitosis, in which each descendant cell is virtually identical with ancestor (and in the first generation, actually contains matter that was actually half of the ancestor.

But, since all life on Earth seems to have arisen from a common ancestor, it would indeed seem that there is only one life, and all the forms are just slightly different iterations of the same life. So, in that sense, yes, there is one life...on Earth. But if life evolved on any other world, it would be a separate life.

And, scientists recently constructed a synthetic single-celled organism, and are working to create others using different chemistry. one could argue that these are life.

 

[Sonofason]

I think it depends on where you draw the line. When a bacteria or other single-celled organism grows to the point that it divides into two, is that a separate life? You seem to be saying No, that is a single life now in two "bodies." And if they divide again, that is still the same life, that has grown and divided into more cells. but others could argue that once the division is complete, they are separate life forms.

To me, it might be similar to the old philosophical question, "can you step into the same river twice?" What makes a river the same or different at different times? What is "a" river, given that the water in the river is constantly moving, it's level and speed changes over time, etc.? What makes you different at different times? What is "you," given that each individual is a flow of matter and energy that is in constant flux?

Anyway, in western thought at least, a human (or other eukaryotic life that uses sexual reproduction) "starts" when gametes from the parents (via meiosis) come together and begins to grow through cell division into a unique individual. Given the line of thought that you seem to be proposing, that is in that sense an artificial distinction. Yet, it also reflects the reality that genetically, the offspring is only 50 percent related to each parent, and is therefore "different" to some degree from the "offspring" of bacteria or other unicellular forms reproducing through mitosis, in which each descendant cell is virtually identical with ancestor (and in the first generation, actually contains matter that was actually half of the ancestor.

But, since all life on Earth seems to have arisen from a common ancestor, it would indeed seem that there is only one life, and all the forms are just slightly different iterations of the same life. So, in that sense, yes, there is one life...on Earth. But if life evolved on any other world, it would be a separate life.

And, scientists recently constructed a synthetic single-celled organism, and are working to create others using different chemistry. one could argue that these are life.

You have to remember that when the gametes come together from each parent, neither dies. Neither discontinues its life and existence. Okay, so in your response, you eventually came to the same conclusion that I have, that there is intrinsically only one life. But for some reason you were compelled to suggest that if life were to exist somewhere else other than this planet, that it must not be the same life that exists here on this planet. Why? I'm wondering why life in another part of the universe can't be the same life that exists right here on our little planet Earth.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You have to remember that when the gametes come together from each parent, neither dies. Neither discontinues its life and existence. Okay, so in your response, you eventually came to the same conclusion that I have, that there is intrinsically only one life. But for some reason you were compelled to suggest that if life were to exist somewhere else other than this planet, that it must not be the same life that exists here on this planet. Why? I'm wondering why life in another part of the universe can't be the same life that exists right here on out little planet Earth.

My conclusion is that I understand that you are drawing your distinction line differently than it commonly is in modern biology, and that others might choose to disagree with your interpretation. Using your sense, sure all life on earth is "one," because it forms one system of life originating from a common ancestor. but it also introduces difficulties, because the "one life" differentiates into different forms, and kills and eats itself in order to grow and survive. Not conceptually impossible, but it's also not that helpful in understanding what goes on on Earth.

Well, if the life on other planets has different origins and is not related--even consists of different chemicals, etc.,--I would argue that it is not the "same" life as on earth. Why would the silicon-based life on one world, or the cold-temperature life that arose in the methane seas of a world like Titan be "the same life that exists right here on our little planet Earth?"

 

[Sonofason]

My conclusion is that I understand that you are drawing your distinction line differently than it commonly is in modern biology, and that others might choose to disagree with your interpretation. Using your sense, sure all life on earth is "one," because it forms one system of life originating from a common ancestor. but it also introduces difficulties, because the "one life" differentiates into different forms, and kills and eats itself in order to grow and survive. Not conceptually impossible, but it's also not that helpful in understanding what goes on on Earth.

Well, if the life on other planets has different origins and is not related--even consists of different chemicals, etc.,--I would argue that it is not the "same" life as on earth. Why would the silicon-based life on one world, or the cold-temperature life that arose in the methane seas of a world like Titan be "the same life that exists right here on our little planet Earth?"

Keep in mind the definition we are using. It doesn't seem plausible to me that life should grow. Our bodies grow, but the life or intrinsic quality that separates us from corpses and inanimate objects does not grow. With that in mind, I seriously doubt that life has a need to eat, to kill or to survive. But you're right, life seems to depart us if we do not give our bodies the nourishment our bodies need to support the life that is in us.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body or inanimate object

So, you are asserting that this distinguishing quality is something other than free energy of the environment that has been captured and turned into biological organisms through chemistry (example, sunlight converted through photosynthesis into the body of the a plant, which is then consumed by an animal, which converts that food into its own body)?

 

[Sonofason]

So, you are asserting that this distinguishing quality is something other than free energy of the environment that has been captured and turned into biological organisms through chemistry (example, sunlight converted through photosynthesis into the body of the a plant, which is then consumed by an animal, which converts that food into its own body)?

No, I agree with you, that bodies need nourishment in order to sustain life. But I would not say that life is the "free energy of the environment". But I suppose it could be. It seems to me that the life that is in us empowers us, and enables us to utilize and incorporate the free energy of the environment in order to sustain our bodies for the sake of that life that is in us. I haven't got this all worked out..that's for sure. But I am quite sure that the life that is in me began long before my own personal existence began. And strangely, life has a system all worked out in order to sustain itself, which is reproduction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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,

So... metabolism?

 

[Sonofason]

So... metabolism?

I said life, not metabolism. Its a word...look it up.