What is Life?

There's a difference between "description" and "definition".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

That is exactly the point I am making - if it cannot be weighed or measured then it cannot possibly exist according to the reductionist view but I am completely unwilling to say that Life doesn't existEdited by mosassam, : No reason given.

Part of the description of reality must include, imo, Life. But what is the definition of Life.Edited by mosassam, : No reason given.

Certainly, a description of reality should include a description of life - but what does a description of life have to do with a definition of life? An artist can describe life without defining it. Why not a scientist?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

I have no idea. Not at all sure what any of that means.As I have said, there are things where we can definitely say, "Yup, that's alive."There are things where we can say "Yup, that's not alive."But there are also things that seem alive and not alive depending on the perspective and moment.Not sure what "real" has to do with any of it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Let's keep it to the things that we can say "yup, that's alive". Would you agree that 'alive' can mean to 'possess Life'. If so is this Life as scientifically comprehensible as Energy or Matter?

I have not asked for a description of Life, I have asked for a definition - what thoughts do you have regarding this. Don't you think it should be possible?Edited by mosassam, : No reason given.

Nope, wouldn't even understand how life could be possessed less we are talking Exorcist films. We still have a very long way before we comprehend energy or matter too. Can't do that. That would be excluding data and so very much non scientific.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You said that "part of science is to provide a description of reality". I'm asking what that has to do with a definition. My thought is that science can putter along quite nicely without a definition of life. Definitions, by definition, are vague. "Meaning" is necessarily subjective. It's possible to have a thousand different definitions of life. It isn't possible to agree on one.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

When YOU say "yup, that's alive" what do you mean by 'alive'?

Not all that much.It means that the thing seems to be something that reproduces by one of many different methods, capable of movement, that takes in some form of energy and expels some form of waste at least during part of its life cycle and that at some point can be said to be not alive.It is really loose, vague.As I pointed out way back in Message 7... There are points where I can say it is blue, or green, but there are also many places that are kinda green or kinda blue or not blue or not green.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why are you unwilling?
If you are unable to define the thing that you want so much to exist, then perhaps it is a psychological issue.
I do not mean that you are 'mad' or 'ill', but that maybe there is an intrinsic part of many people's psyches that wants 'life' to be real.To paraphrase Voltaire:
""Let us accept that life exists. But what if it didn't? Well, we would have to invent it, because it is necessary for the individual / society , for whatever reasons."

You really are clueless, aren't you?How is that in any way a working definition of life?

I am unwilling to say that Life doesn't exist in the same way I am unwilling to say that Matter doesn't exist or Energy doesn't exist. Is there anything you have to say about the subject of the thread itself?
I feel this thread is getting bogged down in semantics and solipsism. Let me help you out.
A good working definition of Matter is "that which has mass and occupies physical space". I wondered if there was a similar kind of definition for Life but, judging by the responses I've received to this thread it appears there isn't. This leads me to suspect that Life, like Mind, cannot be scientifically proven to exist. In a forum dealing with evolution I find this unusual to say the least.

I think the problem is that chemical processes that take place are often described as part of being 'alive' or' not alive'.But this is arbitrarily designating every thing into 2 distinct categories and then claiming that because we have arbitrarily decided to do this that 'alive' and 'not alive' are two distinct entities.A human being has many chemical and electro-chemical processes taking place in her body but these are the same processes that take place in a virus: is a virus life?English uses the word 'life' to categorise what we informally recognise as fitting in that category of 'life'.It's like asking when a person is middle class or upper class: just two convenient labels used for categorisation that are not particularly rigorous or informative.In short 'life' is a clumsy label.Edited by Larni, : Clarity