Definition of "Life"

[kantus12]

After reading a Maverick Philosopher blog post (here: maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/12/scientific-american-why-life-does-not-really-exist.html) about why this (blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/) article was bad philosophy, I got into something of a discussion with one of my online friends about the nature of “life”.

I wasn’t exactly sure how to respond to his argument, so I decided to post it on here, to see if any of you had some ideas that could enlighten our discussion. My friend’s points were as follows:

1. Well first he (the Mav Phil writer) makes the assumption without any particular good reason that the other guy’s argument is “life = complexity,” which is of course not accurate.
2. Second, he (Mav Phil) assumes that complexity is the *only *criterion, and doesn’t define what complexity means.
   Life = complexity in the strong sense, but not in the colloquial sense.
3. He (Mav Phil) asserts that mathematical sets are nonliving by nature without defining what he means by living in the first place, only that mathematical sets are intuitively not. This is begging the question.

My judgment on the matter, after reading both articles, was that the writer of the Scientific American article did in fact maintain that complexity was the only thing that separated nonliving from living, since it contains the line:

“What differentiates molecules of water, rocks, and silverware from cats, people and other living things is not “life,” but complexity.”

So, what do you all think? Sorry for the sloppy presentation, but I didn’t know how else to put it.

 

[tonyrey]

Your “sloppy” presentation is the inevitable result of dealing with a “sloppy” hypothesis.
To define life as complexity is a travesty of truth and justice which ignores the unity, plasticity, creativity and purposeful activity of physical organisms.

 

[meltzerboy]

After reading a Maverick Philosopher blog post (here: maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/12/scientific-american-why-life-does-not-really-exist.html) about why this (blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/) article was bad philosophy, I got into something of a discussion with one of my online friends about the nature of “life”.

I wasn’t exactly sure how to respond to his argument, so I decided to post it on here, to see if any of you had some ideas that could enlighten our discussion. My friend’s points were as follows:

1. Well first he (the Mav Phil writer) makes the assumption without any particular good reason that the other guy’s argument is “life = complexity,” which is of course not accurate.
2. Second, he (Mav Phil) assumes that complexity is the *only *criterion, and doesn’t define what complexity means.
   Life = complexity in the strong sense, but not in the colloquial sense.
3. He (Mav Phil) asserts that mathematical sets are nonliving by nature without defining what he means by living in the first place, only that mathematical sets are intuitively not. This is begging the question.

My judgment on the matter, after reading both articles, was that the writer of the Scientific American article did in fact maintain that complexity was the only thing that separated nonliving from living, since it contains the line:

“What differentiates molecules of water, rocks, and silverware from cats, people and other living things is not “life,” but complexity.”

So, what do you all think? Sorry for the sloppy presentation, but I didn’t know how else to put it.

For animals, one might differentiate living organisms from non-living things on the basis of the sentient property of consciousness. Of course one might have to then elaborate upon various levels of consciousness among different species as well as within a single human. For example, to what extent is an insect conscious or sentient compared to a cat and compared to a human, as well as the differences in consciousness between the waking state, the sleeping state, the dream state, the drug-induced state of mind, and so on. Further, the same criterion does not seem to work in the same way for the plant kingdom. Do plants have consciousness? This question has had some intriguing responses as of late which point toward the affirmative. Also of interest is the fact that children as young as two years already have a basic categorization distinction between living vs. non-living. Even when one “dresses up” a toaster oven to resemble a dog, young children do not believe the toaster is in any way alive. The same applies to their dolls.

 

[GEddie]

Without recourse to consciousness, one can differentiate life by cellular organization, maintenance and division, metabolic chemistry, and directed growth (at least in part of the life cycle).

(I left reproduction out solely because some organisms, ie, pets that have been “fixed” or human beings beyond reproductive age, do not carry out reproduction yet are nonetheless alive. Without the cellular functions, there is no life.)

There would remain a gray area concerning viruses (the body kind, not computer). These are not cells and do not contain them, and do not metabolize on their own; yet act in some respects as life does.

While many of our man made machines approach the complexity of a human body-cell, none are cellular or self-maintaining, and none would be confused with a living being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[balto]

Without recourse to consciousness, one can differentiate life by cellular organization, maintenance and division, metabolic chemistry, and directed growth (at least in part of the life cycle).

(I left reproduction out solely because some organisms, ie, pets that have been “fixed” or human beings beyond reproductive age, do not carry out reproduction yet are nonetheless alive. Without the cellular functions, there is no life.)

There would remain a gray area concerning viruses (the body kind, not computer). These are not cells and do not contain them, and do not metabolize on their own; yet act in some respects as life does.

While many of our man made machines approach the complexity of a human body-cell, none are cellular or self-maintaining, and none would be confused with a living being.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, I would agree with what you have said here. The topic of viruses leads to interesting discussions. Ironically enough the field of biology can’t seem to agree on whether viruses are alive or not, although it might be argued that a virus does meet the cell definition because the components it lacks are hijacked from another source.

Maybe a more basic definition that may suit the OP’s needs would be one in which life is defined as that which naturally tends to more order instead of disorder. That gets around defining it in terms of complexity since complex objects still tend to decay. I don’t know if the order definition is valid, I was just throwing it out there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

After reading a Maverick Philosopher blog post (here: maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/12/scientific-american-why-life-does-not-really-exist.html) about why this (blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/) article was bad philosophy, I got into something of a discussion with one of my online friends about the nature of “life”.

I wasn’t exactly sure how to respond to his argument, so I decided to post it on here, to see if any of you had some ideas that could enlighten our discussion. My friend’s points were as follows:

1. Well first he (the Mav Phil writer) makes the assumption without any particular good reason that the other guy’s argument is “life = complexity,” which is of course not accurate.
2. Second, he (Mav Phil) assumes that complexity is the *only *criterion, and doesn’t define what complexity means.
   Life = complexity in the strong sense, but not in the colloquial sense.
3. He (Mav Phil) asserts that mathematical sets are nonliving by nature without defining what he means by living in the first place, only that mathematical sets are intuitively not. This is begging the question.

My judgment on the matter, after reading both articles, was that the writer of the Scientific American article did in fact maintain that complexity was the only thing that separated nonliving from living, since it contains the line:

“What differentiates molecules of water, rocks, and silverware from cats, people and other living things is not “life,” but complexity.”

So, what do you all think? Sorry for the sloppy presentation, but I didn’t know how else to put it.

The standard explanation is that living things nourish themselves, grow, reproduce, seek to maintain the good of the entity, in the vegetable world. All living things manifest these qualities. So " life " can be defined as that source in living things which causes these things and we call this source " life. "

Linus2nd.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I asked the following question in another thread. I’m curious what people here will think:

There are computer programs that take in an initial configuration of atoms, and simulate the future behavior of that system, using just the equations of quantum mechanics. The number of atoms that can be simulated, and the time scale of the simulation, is growing as our computer power is growing.

At what point will these simulations fail to match reality due to the failure of materialism/reductionism? A single celll? A small multicellular plant? An insect? A mammal? A neanderthal? A human being?

It seems to me that the definition of life is that something is living if its behavior can’t be reduced to the laws of quantum mechanics simply operating on its individual atoms.

 

[balto]

I asked the following question in another thread. I’m curious what people here will think:

It seems to me that the definition of life is that something is living if its behavior can’t be reduced to the laws of quantum mechanics simply operating on its individual atoms.

It’s an interesting consideration and I think that you are correct in thinking that life probably is something that is not completely reducible to physical laws. The problem is selling that to people with a materialist leaning. We had a thread going a couple of weeks ago about how the human mind can’t be reduced to purely physical laws but I guess we can never know for sure with other life forms. The problem with the computer simulation experiment is that if it doesn’t correctly model a life form’s behavior someone could always say “well that’s just because we don’t know how to model all of the physical laws properly. If we did understand the physical laws perfectly we could do it.”

 

[D_Martin]

Sounds like uninteresting, to bad you can’t get that time back you spent on it. A galaxy is complex isn’t it? Is that a living organism? If you notice the presence of life makes that which of itself doesn’t have life, act to accommodate the presence of life. Hence that which doesn’t have life manifests the presence of the life in it. That’s the difference between that which doesn’t have life within it and that which does. Complexity is a matter of perspective, not proof of life.