There are over 100 definitions for "life" and all are wrong

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I suppose what that really means is that any one of those 100 different definitions is only partially correct. But it is the new year and the article talks about life non-biological "life" as well.


It is surprisingly difficult to pin down the difference between living and non-living things.

If anything, the problem of defining life has become even more difficult over the last 100 years or so. Until the 19th Century one prevalent idea was that life is special thanks to the presence of an intangible soul or "vital spark". This idea has now fallen out of favour in scientific circles. It has since been superseded by more scientific approaches. Nasa, for instance, has described life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".

Maybe trying to define life is like looking for the ether through which light propagates. Maybe defining life really is a job for philosophers in the end. Or maybe we should simply recognize that there are many different forms of life, all correct, and get on with cataloging them all, instead of looking for the silver bullet that quite obviously isn't there.

But it is a comprehensive article and so thought to post it here.

 

[rousseau]

Science actually has this pretty much nailed down, except that, as always, there are exceptions which some people can't agree on.

A quick search turned up this article which summarizes the features universal to almost all living organisms.

From my medical biology studies during my undergrad I recall that the 'status' of virii is a bit ambiguous because they need a host to reproduce, but other than them most living things can be defined by the above.

What's interesting, though, is when we get philosophical and start thinking about the differentiation between life and non-life as being arbitrary. In this manner, we stop seeing life as something that's special and rather just an exotic feature of the universe.

 

[fast]

Science actually has this pretty much nailed down, except that, as always, there are exceptions which some people can't agree on.

A quick search turned up this article which summarizes the features universal to almost all living organisms.

From my medical biology studies during my undergrad I recall that the 'status' of virii is a bit ambiguous because they need a host to reproduce, but other than them most living things can be defined by the above.

What's interesting, though, is when we get philosophical and start thinking about the differentiation between life and non-life as being arbitrary. In this manner, we stop seeing life as something that's special and rather just an exotic feature of the universe.

What is so egregious about referring to biological entities as special? We don't merely treat many life forms differently than than non-life forms but better. Could that not signal there is something special about life?

 

[rousseau]

Science actually has this pretty much nailed down, except that, as always, there are exceptions which some people can't agree on.

A quick search turned up this article which summarizes the features universal to almost all living organisms.

From my medical biology studies during my undergrad I recall that the 'status' of virii is a bit ambiguous because they need a host to reproduce, but other than them most living things can be defined by the above.

What's interesting, though, is when we get philosophical and start thinking about the differentiation between life and non-life as being arbitrary. In this manner, we stop seeing life as something that's special and rather just an exotic feature of the universe.

What is so egregious about referring to biological entities as special? We don't merely treat many life forms differently than than non-life forms but better. Could that not signal there is something special about life?

Because regarding ourselves as something unique and distinct in the universe is right in line with past ego-centric thinking that decided the earth is the centre of the universe, or that there's a God watching over us.

The end goal is to get over ourselves and realize we're just another part of the universe, and if we want to lead good lives we need to follow the rules which actually exist.

 

[Juma]

What is so egregious about referring to biological entities as special? We don't merely treat many life forms differently than than non-life forms but better. Could that not signal there is something special about life?

Because regarding ourselves as something unique and distinct in the universe is right in line with past ego-centric thinking that decided the earth is the centre of the universe, or that there's a God watching over us.

The end goal is to get over ourselves and realize we're just another part of the universe, and if we want to lead good lives we need to follow the rules which actually exist.

Life, the life we know here on earth, is special. Not in special as different from the rest of the world: special as it is a single gigantic chemical process.

 

[fast]

That there is something special about us is independent of whether we're mistaken about why we think we are. So, it doesn't matter whether Neil Degrasse Tyson is right or if Billy Graham is right about the why. If you look upon the eyes of a child or the dew upon a rose and find something special in the vibrance of that life, it seems to me no error is made. Someone once tried to argue that people are not special as we all squat when we shit, but it's an ashamed custom to neglect the contrast that sets us all apart. Yes, we are apart of the cosmos, but that single rose that touched the heart of that child's mom is (and should be) regarded not just another no different than the next, but unique, special, and worthy of some positive thought.

 

[Bronzeage]

I suppose the less than obvious question is, what does it matter? If we had a concrete definition and the requisite questionnaire, which would be used to determine if any particular mass was alive, or had been at some point, how would we use the information, or better, what would we do differently?

When my daughter was very young, the universe was a new place for her. She organized the animal world into two classes, those that bite and those that don't. Whenever she encountered a new animal, whether it was a ocelot or a water shrew, her only question was, "Does it bite?" Once she had this information, her curiosity was satisfied and she was comfortable. Of course, it was inevitable that soon an ambiguous animal would appear, one that might bite, or maybe not.

That's the problem with classifications. The more well defined the boundaries, the more likely it is we will find something draped across the line.

 

[rousseau]

That there is something special about us is independent of whether we're mistaken about why we think we are. So, it doesn't matter whether Neil Degrasse Tyson is right or if Billy Graham is right about the why. If you look upon the eyes of a child or the dew upon a rose and find something special in the vibrance of that life, it seems to me no error is made. Someone once tried to argue that people are not special as we all squat when we shit, but it's an ashamed custom to neglect the contrast that sets us all apart. Yes, we are apart of the cosmos, but that single rose that touched the heart of that child's mom is (and should be) regarded not just another no different than the next, but unique, special, and worthy of some positive thought.

In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that regarding life as special is egregious anyway, I was just pointing out that in the cosmic perspective there is nothing exceptional about life other than the things that distinguish us from non-life, and that's something that almost no human beings alive today have recognized.

 

[Lion IRC]

I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis. Walk away from it.
Life/Non-life. There's no real difference. Hence no need to explain how we got here.

 

[rousseau]

I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis. Walk away from it.
Life/Non-life. There's no real difference. Hence no need to explain how we got here.

Life would still be distinct from non-life, and abiogenesis still a factor in it's existence, the point is closer to: life is an exotic configuration/classification of matter, and so we would exist on a tree with other, non-living objects in the universe.

 

[Bomb#20]

 

[crispy]

Science actually has this pretty much nailed down, except that, as always, there are exceptions which some people can't agree on.

A quick search turned up this article which summarizes the features universal to almost all living organisms.

From my medical biology studies during my undergrad I recall that the 'status' of virii is a bit ambiguous because they need a host to reproduce, but other than them most living things can be defined by the above.

Isn't it fine that virii aren't considered alive?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That there is something special about us is independent of whether we're mistaken about why we think we are. So, it doesn't matter whether Neil Degrasse Tyson is right or if Billy Graham is right about the why. If you look upon the eyes of a child or the dew upon a rose and find something special in the vibrance of that life, it seems to me no error is made. Someone once tried to argue that people are not special as we all squat when we shit, but it's an ashamed custom to neglect the contrast that sets us all apart. Yes, we are apart of the cosmos, but that single rose that touched the heart of that child's mom is (and should be) regarded not just another no different than the next, but unique, special, and worthy of some positive thought.

In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that regarding life as special is egregious anyway, I was just pointing out that in the cosmic perspective there is nothing exceptional about life other than the things that distinguish us from non-life, and that's something that almost no human beings alive today have recognized.

The end of the article defined living as something along the lines of, "the ability to replicate, with variation." That would include a virus certainly. If it needs a host that's really just an environment in which it can do that, no different than what we require.

I don't see Earth and the life here as special, although thinking we're special can certainly bring comfort.

 

[rousseau]

In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that regarding life as special is egregious anyway, I was just pointing out that in the cosmic perspective there is nothing exceptional about life other than the things that distinguish us from non-life, and that's something that almost no human beings alive today have recognized.

The end of the article defined living as something along the lines of, "the ability to replicate, with variation." That would include a virus certainly. If it needs a host that's really just an environment in which it can do that, no different than what we require.

I don't see Earth and the life here as special, although thinking we're special can certainly bring comfort.

You're better reading some hard science than an article written by the BBC. The link I originally posted might provide a quick snap-shot, but listening to scientists themselves would be more illuminating than a British journalist who's a few years out of college.

For the vast majority of living things there are common characteristics, but virii don't meet all of those characteristics, so their classification is ambiguous unless you want to trim off some of the characteristics of non-viral life. I haven't looked into this issue in nearly ten years, but I'm sure you'd get varying definitions of virii depending on perspective. In the end we're pretty sure what it means to be alive, but at that point it's not that it's hard to pin down the definition, it's that by the nature of the problem the definition is ambiguous and a matter of how you want to define life.

 

[fast]

That there is something special about us is independent of whether we're mistaken about why we think we are. So, it doesn't matter whether Neil Degrasse Tyson is right or if Billy Graham is right about the why. If you look upon the eyes of a child or the dew upon a rose and find something special in the vibrance of that life, it seems to me no error is made. Someone once tried to argue that people are not special as we all squat when we shit, but it's an ashamed custom to neglect the contrast that sets us all apart. Yes, we are apart of the cosmos, but that single rose that touched the heart of that child's mom is (and should be) regarded not just another no different than the next, but unique, special, and worthy of some positive thought.

In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that regarding life as special is egregious anyway, I was just pointing out that in the cosmic perspective there is nothing exceptional about life other than the things that distinguish us from non-life, and that's something that almost no human beings alive today have recognized.

I see, it's categorical, as in 'a' or 'not a', and in that sense, there are seemingly unlimited categorical options: things that bite versus things that don't; water or not water. A sun or not a sun. There are two things in this multiverse: ants that crawl onto donuts or not ants that crawl on donuts.

Isn't the prerequisite complexity that thriving new life depends on extraordinarily exceptional? I'm not trying to draw some religious connection. I'm just saying the distinction between life and not life is fantastically different than mundane differences between rock and not a rock, solid or not a solid, naked versus wait, that might not be a good example, lol.

By the way, I didn't mean to suggest you were saying its egregious to regard life as special; I've just noticed where the word, "special" seems to spark inner frustrations. If a theist says "people are special and here is why," a rebuttal could be, "yes people are but no, here is why." Instead, it's almost as if because theists say it and have their reasons, they want to deny the special part but strangely because of the reasons a theist might say so.

 

[Elixir]

Science actually has this pretty much nailed down, except that, as always, there are exceptions which some people can't agree on.

A quick search turned up this article which summarizes the features universal to almost all living organisms.

From my medical biology studies during my undergrad I recall that the 'status' of virii is a bit ambiguous because they need a host to reproduce, but other than them most living things can be defined by the above.

Isn't it fine that virii aren't considered alive?

There are religious rubicons that must not be crossed. Since humans have been able to synthesize virii, it will be absolutely, totally and forever uncool to call a virus "alive".

 

[sdelsolray]

I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis. Walk away from it.
Life/Non-life. There's no real difference. Hence no need to explain how we got here.

Two strawmen in one post. This one is good (at creating strawmen).

 

[Lion IRC]

I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis. Walk away from it.
Life/Non-life. There's no real difference. Hence no need to explain how we got here.

Two strawmen in one post. This one is good (at creating strawmen).

How can I strawman myself?

I said "I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis".

Me. I think it's a good solution to the problem.

I didn't say that a strawman thinks it's a good solution or that a strawman walks away.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How can I strawman myself?

Pretty easily, it looks like.
Do YOU really think there's no big difference between life and non-life?
Is it really your opinion that there's no need to explain how we got here?

 

[bilby]

I guess that's one way to solve the problem of abiogenesis. Walk away from it.
Life/Non-life. There's no real difference. Hence no need to explain how we got here.

You are absolutely right, for the first time on these boards.

It's such a shame that your first completely accurate and correct post was intended to be facetious.

Life is just a particularly complex instance of cyclic chemistry. Just as we can define red, and define blue, but cannot point to a particular shade of purple and say 'that's the boundary between red and blue', so we can define life, and we can define non-life, but when we go seeking the boundary between the two, we discover that there is none.

Biology is complex chemistry, and chemistry is complex physics.

Categories are often arbitrary, and their usefulness is therefore limited (but non-zero). Life/Non-life is a good example of an arbitrary categorization that is of little value close to the boundary zone between the two sets.

Magic is imaginary, and is not a part of any of this.

Of course, your conclusion is flawed; Understanding the details of the chemistry that gave rise to life is fascinating, and so there is (as with all observable phenomena) a desire to explain how it works - curiosity is a fundamental trait of intelligent people. But it's not strictly a need.