[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by Robert The Earth can be alive in the sense that it has weather, seasons, tectonic plates that move, cycles of warming and cooling, etc. There are many cycles in nature that cause the earth to evolve and mature in various ways. This could be considered life, but that depends on how loose or strict the definition of life is. If the Earth is alive then would a piece of the Earth be alive such as a rock or a doorknob. I think that I would be considered alive, but would my kidney or my shin bone be alive? Anyway, the official scientific definition of life is essentially that all life is cellular.

Hey Robert, I think the Earth is alive in a Gaia sense (as one organism). Why wouldn't your shin bone or kidney or eyelash be alive? They aren't conscious (let's hope!) but that (in my opinion) doesn't determine life. If they didn't live, they wouldn't be able to function, no?

[Unreal Zelta]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Hey Robert, I think the Earth is alive in a Gaia sense (as one organism). Why wouldn't your shin bone or kidney or eyelash be alive? They aren't conscious (let's hope!) but that (in my opinion) doesn't determine life. If they didn't live, they wouldn't be able to function, no?

Harmony,
How would you define the word "conscious?"

Best regards
Zelta

[chazzysaw]

So it seems to me that something can have life and not be conscious but nothing can be conscious and not have life?

[harmonygirl]

I think of conscious as awareness (either of self or of just being). Is an amoeba aware of itself? We call it life, tho, don't we? Or how about someone in a coma-not conscious, but still alive...Chazzysaw, I agree, consciousness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of life. Is light alive? still looking at that one...it's energy but...

[Unreal Zelta]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I think of conscious as awareness (either of self or of just being). Is an amoeba aware of itself? We call it life, tho, don't we? Or how about someone in a coma-not conscious, but still alive...Chazzysaw, I agree, consciousness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of life. Is light alive? still looking at that one...it's energy but...

So, you are saying that if a being (or an object) can make its own decisions without interferences or other manipulations, then it's alive or conscious. So it's something to be with the brain? The object must have the qualities of processing encounters and express their emotions or reactions accordingly to there mind or free will? Mmm, we are onto something here. Let's keep it up!

Best ragards
Zelta

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I think of conscious as awareness (either of self or of just being). Is an amoeba aware of itself? We call it life, tho, don't we? Or how about someone in a coma-not conscious, but still alive...Chazzysaw, I agree, consciousness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of life. Is light alive? still looking at that one...it's energy but...

Is a person in a coma un-conscious??? Medical Science states it as so... however.... to be in an unconscious state... is to be in a coma is to be un-aware of the world around you... in having stated this I would also like to ask... " how many people do you hear of daily... who claimed to hear whilst be in a coma?"

In Astronomy... a coma is stated as the nebulous luminescent cloud containing the nucleus and constituting the major portion of the head of a comet... Hence the word coma... ( a medical coma is a head injury)... In physics a coma is described as "to diffuse" a comet-shaped image of a point source of light or radiation caused by aberration in the optical system.

Diffuse insolation is the solar radiation that is scattered

Light is simply open ... and is made of the energies of other elements using friction.. as energy is open.... if you think it alive ... it will be alive... however ... it is only one word in a realm of many a man

Consciousness is.... ??? Is needed.... yes...to live.... As a newborn baby appears to the world... it is not born adequate... unable to care for its ownself... it certainly has inadequacies... it is not determined un-conscious and un-aware... maybe... although the baby is programmed to a certain degree... like a baby knows its hungry and cries... conscious... as the baby is aware of the fact it needs food... although the baby will not know the feeling of "what hunger is"... we learn this awareness from immediate influences... commonly known as our parents... whom... by the way... were consciously aware of what they were doing when they did it .... although maybe they were un-aware of a the magical world growing as a result of their actions...untill a test told them... that is unless of course.... conception was planned in accordance to a want .... to maybe bring light to their life...

Some people sit at home daily.... semmingly un-aware of the world outside... quite often even un-aware to their own selves and why they sit at home daily... although they are aware of what they know to that point of existance... sometimes this knowledge is unable to be contained... whether this be due to ignorance or a psychological problem.... these people have progressed to a point they no longer progress further.... and therefore it is said to be and life or "ing" is no longer.... this then becomes unconscious awareness.... this brings me to the question of WHAT IS "A" LIFE????

[Guille]

Originally Posted by chazzysaw So it seems to me that something can have life and not be conscious but nothing can be conscious and not have life?

That is totally true. For example, trees and plants. And the importance of this is that many who have said (now I can only remember the post here by Mohan) that life depends on consciousness, or requiers the condition of consciousness, are wrong.

I also want to ask to everyone: Is human life different in any way to animal life? (give reasons, not only in form of arguments, but also in form of observations).

[gilga]

"Specially, I want us to define the concept of life. What says that something lives? What conditions are required for life? What does living imply?"

Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
And If I die, for a while my nails will continue to grow and my hair too. But since they will burn my body on the funeral pyre; I as me will cease to exist. Ashes to Ashes dust to dust. Yes, every cell of the body.
Robert is right. Life begins at a cellular level. How we want to define it is whether that cell is capable of asking a question such as this. Let me phrase a poem of Ogden Nash… A hydra and amoeba were having a race. The amoeba cheated at the finish line by dividing itself and taking the first and second place. Here the amoeba was thinking because a thinker with his poem made it so for him.
You ask a very pertinent question, which goes beyond philosophy into the realm of medicine. How do they characterize when to pull the so-called plug?

"A definition or fact is just what we all agree on. Let's say I'm holding a pen in my hand, But if everyone agrees that's a pencil, then it's a pencil."

Last on the logic of this sentence:
I again quote and this time it’s Anatole France, I think…
If twenty thousand people say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing.
Everyone may say it is a pencil, but the fact remains that it is actually a pen.

My question: Was this a rhetorical question? Then I think that’s been discussed. If not then you will need the biologists, physicists, chemical engineers plus a whole bag of other types to come together and really give an answer that would be appropriate.

[tony_fleming]

hi all,

This is something that has been elusive to nail down with our current knowledge of atomic chemistry as distinct from photon chemistry.

If you read the paper at the following link

http://www.unifiedphysics.com/SFT_Mathematics.pdf

you will see that life can be defined as those entities that can communicate via photon chemistry with other forms of matter, both inert and living.

What this means is that a stone cannot change its internal atomic fields in order to relate to other biofields because it does not have the ability to allow its internal fields to go outside its outer electron shell. Whereas via DNA, lifeforms CAN. This abilty of living entities allows the underlying atomic eigensolutions to adapt so that emissions from inside an atom can occur

[Guille]

Naropa,

Very cartesian. Remember though that 'sum' in latin is to exist, to be, not to live. Plants are alive, but don't think. My thread is not about rhetorical questions, those are tipical from theologians. I am, above anything else, a philosopher, a thinker. But also a scientist. They question thus belongs to both areas of discourse. The reason I wrote several questions in my post was so that people had an idea of what I wanted to debate, as you can see, some are philosophical and some are biological. I do not believe a biologist will know more than a philosopher or vice versa, I believe the two have essential knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. I agree with what you say about many people being stupid, I call it the 'mayority factor' (it's the classic argument 'most people say/believe/know/like/do... this/that, therefore it must be better/bigger/correct/true/good...). But what's that to do with the discussion? I have never said that we should define what life is to our own will, I have always defended that to be 'true' we must be create theories from the world, from observations.

Anyway, I think you should renew your theoretical thought, we're not in the 18th century anymore, when the discussion was rationalism-empiricism. Art has lost it's relationship with the world, it does not represent it anymore, it comes directly from the inconscience of the artist. Science is no more that 'objective truth' which was founded by Galileo, Kepler and Newton... It is, now we know, something that changes with time, that is only correct, not 'true', because it is done to favour the conditions of the space-time points in which it is applied, and the necessities of society and state.