What exactly constitutes life?

[ronthepon]

Well. So carbon is indeed not ahead of hydrogen in the formation of life.

 

And, I have come across certain references that silicon may replace carbon in a hypothetical life form. I also saw an article on discovery.

[hallenrm]

A scientific basis of life, should not only explain the presently known forms of life, but should also help in exploring further.

 

Most of the definitions of life; eg its ability to reproduce, or nutrition, metabolism, catabolism fall flat on this count.

 

Let me further enunciate the concept of life proposed by me.

 

Life is additive, that is, all multicellular living beings are madeup of cells, which in turn can also be termed living.

 

But why do we stop at the cellular level only, if we accepts that all atoms and molecules are also living, we step on tio a higher paradigm, that can lead to a revolution in scientific thought. In an earlier thread I had opined that one of the principal characterstic of all life forms is organization, the organization may be limited to a limited space or may not be.

 

Thus I would reaffirm my thought that atoms/molecules are living, as long as they are naturally occuring.:confused:

[ronthepon]

A scientific basis of life, should not only explain the presently known forms of life, but should also help in exploring further.

 

Most of the definitions of life; eg its ability to reproduce, or nutrition, metabolism, catabolism fall flat on this count.

 

Let me further enunciate the concept of life proposed by me.

 

Life is additive, that is, all multicellular living beings are madeup of cells, which in turn can also be termed living.

 

But why do we stop at the cellular level only, if we accepts that all atoms and molecules are also living, we step on tio a higher paradigm, that can lead to a revolution in scientific thought. In an earlier thread I had opined that one of the principal characterstic of all life forms is organization, the organization may be limited to a limited space or may not be.

 

Thus I would reaffirm my thought that atoms/molecules are living, as long as they are naturally occuring.:confused:

You are implying that anything is living then. Because we cannot hope to create 'our own' atoms.

 

I'm afraid then everything will be alive. The concept of differentiating things into live and non-live will be meaningless.

 

Alive cells must be lowest unit of life. Below that level, everything is just a complex mixture and arrangement of molecules.

 

So here is yet another claim: Life is what is made of live cells.

[hallenrm]

I'm afraid then everything will be alive. The concept of differentiating things into live and non-live will be meaningless.

 

You caught me there indeed! I need to put on my thinking caps again, longer I suppose!:confused:

[hallenrm]

Well, I thought over it overnight and here are my fresh thoughts on this subject.

 

This question must have been mediated by the ancient Indian philosophers, and to the best of my knowledge they concluded, that there is life in each and every particle that exists in the universe. They used the word Atman for life.

 

Western biologists and philosophers too, attempted to find a more specific definition of life, after the discovery of cell and cellular mechanisms, but to the best of my knowledge there is no consensus on this question.

 

So either we accept the ancient Indian wisdom, or remain confused, is our personal choice!

 

I see no great difficulty to accept that each and every particle, atomic, subatomic or subnuclear can be called alive, only then life is not the exclusive realm for biologist. One can envision various levels of organization that characterize life. And the concept of life becomes very similar to the concept of energy.

 

Let me now respond to the claim of Ronthenpon

 

So here is yet another claim: Life is what is made of live cells.

 

If such is the case, would you call a strand of hair, a speck of dandruff, or a drop of blood, alive

[someguy]

This question must have been mediated by the ancient Indian philosophers, and to the best of my knowledge they concluded, that there is life in each and every particle that exists in the universe. They used the word Atman for life.

Doesn't Atman mean soul?

 

I see no great difficulty to accept that each and every particle, atomic, subatomic or subnuclear can be called alive, only then life is not the exclusive realm for biologist. One can envision various levels of organization that characterize life. And the concept of life becomes very similar to the concept of energy.

This is very interesting but I would say would destroy the idea of life. There would be no such thing any longer. If everything is alive then nothing is dead and therefore all is the same and same would replace life.

 

 

A few thoughts:

Does the ability to feel pain, loss or even instinct play into what is considered life?

It seems this is a major concern when we talk about life.

What about conciousness?

Often times I envision life as the ability to act on it's own behalf. Like a virus, it acts for itself, therefore alive.

What about locomotion?

Does something that has the ability to move by itself make it alive?

 

 

There are interesting ideas about computers but I wonder if anything that is considered to be alive must be constituted by natural objects?

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a computer have to be programmed to act a certain way or have programmed boundries at the least in order to function?

That in and of itself would to me disqualify it as life.

 

Thanks,

Some Guy

[ronthepon]

Life is made of live cells, halenrm.

 

If we consider this, the problem of defining live cells comes, but that's a small problem.

 

Someguy, you can take a look at viruses(no consiousness, no feelings like pain etc) Sponges (No locomotion)

[someguy]

Life is made of live cells, halenrm.

 

If we consider this, the problem of defining live cells comes, but that's a small problem.

 

Someguy, you can take a look at viruses(no consiousness, no feelings like pain etc) Sponges (No locomotion)

True. What about acting on their own behalf? Both of these things do this yet only one is considered life.

[HydrogenBond]

Atoms and nucleons may not fit the definition of life since these do not reproduce but their numbers stay steady. DNA or RNA is where molecules begin to reproduce themselves. Proteins can make proteins but this usually takes a whole group of proteins working together, while the offspring proteins are usually unable to make other proteins. One needs DNA to make the templates that make the first parent proteins.

 

Although the DNA is the only thing that reproduces itself and is responsbile, via templates, for making the rest of the cell, then the question becomes, why isn't the DNA considered the only living part of the cell? If we take out the DNA, the cell might continue to function in a limited capacity,and appear to be aliv,e but it can no longer reproduce so it is not really alive without the DNA. But on the other hand, the DNA can not do squat without the support of the rest of the cell.

 

This almost suggests that life is a duality. However, if we look deeper what coodinates the duality is singular, it is the hydrogen proton. The cell is designed to set up a gradient potential with respect to the protons. Within this gradient the dynamics of life is expressed.

[ronthepon]

Viruses are semi-alive. OK, if that's in doubt take Bacteria. Or protozoa.

 

Magnetman, only DNA, is nothing other than a white gel. It is not at all live appearing.

Maybe I must show the reason why I feel that cells are the lowest level. I'll do that in a later post.

[someguy]

Atoms and nucleons may not fit the definition of life since these do not reproduce but their numbers stay steady. DNA or RNA is where molecules begin to reproduce themselves. Proteins can make proteins but this usually takes a whole group of proteins working together, while the offspring proteins are usually unable to make other proteins. One needs DNA to make the templates that make the first parent proteins.

 

Although the DNA is the only thing that reproduces itself and is responsbile, via templates, for making the rest of the cell, then the question becomes, why isn't the DNA considered the only living part of the cell? If we take out the DNA, the cell might continue to function in a limited capacity,and appear to be aliv,e but it can no longer reproduce so it is not really alive without the DNA. But on the other hand, the DNA can not do squat without the support of the rest of the cell.

 

This almost suggests that life is a duality. However, if we look deeper what coodinates the duality is singular, it is the hydrogen proton. The cell is designed to set up a gradient potential with respect to the protons. Within this gradient the dynamics of life is expressed.

This is interesting, is this to say that without any of these three things life would not exist? The cell, the DNA and the hydrogen proton? None of these things have life in themselves but when you put them together life is there?

Is reproduction a neccessity for life? This seems to be in question.

Is this why you chose your name?

[hallenrm]

In an earlier thread "what is a thought?" I had opined that thoughts are auto catalytic, true to my earlier thoughts I had these new thoughts about my definition of life!:phones:

 

If we agree that life is a concept just like energy, where does it lead to?

 

Energy is a concept that relates to the potential for causing a change, any change.

 

In the same vein Life can be a concept that relates to the potential for creation, of any form!

 

This definition takes care of all confusion. Cells have life because they have the potential for dividing into more cells or organizing themselves into organisms, all new forms. Biological organisms, have life because they have the potential for reproducing, both naturally and artificially!

 

Now, one may ask, what is the potential of creation in atoms and molecules? Remember, it is the atoms and molecules that organize to form biological organisms. But on a much broader point of view, atoms and molecules constitute all chemical substances, that lead to the creation of all artifacts, devices and machines!

 

Isn't it a wonderful thought?:D :) :)

[skuzie]

Life to me is an abstract encapsulated repository of information that is able to sense and interact with the environment in an unpredictable way. In our case we are a collection of cells that each have sorted information, on top of that we have our brain that stores even more information, together this information interacts with the environment, example by absorbing energy (food). We are unpredictable of what we do in this environment (unlike a fire), the question of whether a virus is alive is a question of is a virus predictable every time, at least to me it is.

Life needs not be able to reproduce or be able to evolve, we are stuck in one point of view of what is life by looking at life here on earth, but there may be more exotic life out there. If someday a true AI machine with its own conscious that will be able to make its own choices is created, wouldn’t you call that life?

[HydrogenBond]

All aspects of biological life can be traced to hydrogen proton potentials and gradients. For example, reduced materials are the food of life. The proton begins tightly bound to carbon and nitrogen and upon release into water gain mobility. From this proton gradient potential we get energy.

 

Within a cell, the ion pumps, especially the sodium/potassium pumps, use the lions share of a cell's energy. One of the main uses is to create an interior membrane zone of low hydrogen potential and a zone of high exterior membrane hydrogen potential. The inner potential sets up a hydrogen potential gradient with the DNA. Within this gradient the dynamics of cellular life are expressed, with flow going in both directions to attempt lower the perpetual potential (its constantly renewed). The outside potential interacts with the environment, while migration between the inside and outside of the membrane potential allows the cell to exist beyond its own boundries, into the environment.

 

When we form multicellular animals like humans, the hydrogen proton gradient potentials is established within the entire organism. For example, between nervous tissue and the blood supply, between the brain and the body. This perpetually renewed gradient potentials is what give us life. Age will alter the potential gradient. Life is just one phenomena recycled over and over almost in holographic form, where the smallest works just like the biggests phenomena. Even the interaction of groups of people are due to gradient potentials within the brains. Organizations become a way to express the collective neural potential gradients. Suvival of the fittest in animals implies the strongest neural potential need combined with the maximum potential gradient between brain and body.

[hallenrm]

Life needs not be able to reproduce or be able to evolve, we are stuck in one point of view of what is life by looking at life here on earth, but there may be more exotic life out there. If someday a true AI machine with its own conscious that will be able to make its own choices is created, wouldn’t you call that life?

 

I think you are on the same path as me, skuzie!

 

Let me now extrapolate my thought a bit.

 

The concept of life at present is exclusive, that is, something is either alive or not. The concept of life, expounded by me, is different, it can be quantitative just like the concept of energy. A thing may have more life than another, just like a running train has more energy than a stone in a garden.

 

Atoms of different elements have different amount of life, depending upon their capacity to form different molecules. Thus, atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen would have much more life than atoms of say inert gases. The amount of life in an atom could be calculated from the diversity of (molecular)structures it can form.

 

Similarly a bacterial cell, would have more life than a virus, but much less life than any multicellular organism. Amongst the multicellular organisms a human being would have the maximum life; and amongst human beings creative and socially successful people can be said to have more life than dumb ones.

 

Wouldn't it be new paradigm in science?:confused:

 

I will talk about the usefulness of such a concept next time!!!:) :D

[ronthepon]

How can something have more life than something else?

 

I believe that life is more of a property present in two values: 0 or 1

 

Something is either alive or it is not.

 

The degrees of lifeness as you mentioned may be markers of vitality, or activity.

 

There is also a concept in language called liveliness. I think that it refers to activity.

[hallenrm]

How can something have more life than something else?

 

I believe that life is more of a property present in two values: 0 or 1

 

Something is either alive or it is not.

 

The degrees of lifeness as you mentioned may be markers of vitality, or activity.

 

There is also a concept in language called liveliness. I think that it refers to activity.

 

Well! I am introducing a new concept to override the present one!!:confused: :hihi: :)