I’m asking because I heard some guy in a group talking about his “theory” saying that atoms are alive and also saying that anything that decays is alive. I know that defining life is a problem since you have viruses, fungi, and some exceptions to popular lists but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that atoms are alive.
I think that organisms live and that non-organisms do not. Organisms have behaviors which are subject to the rules of behavior. Organisms as a species have a method of reproduction. Organisms are alive until they are not.
There is no universal definition of what life is that I am aware of. I’m no biologist, though. But it’s still a matter of debate whether viruses are alive. I would suggest you record this guy talking about atoms being alive, then play it back for him when he’s not stoned and see if that gets him to shut up about it.
He wasn’t stoned, he really believed it. He said his definition included all things that other definitions could not (like viruses and fungi), though to me a definition isn’t supposed to include anything and everything, just define terms. I get the when it comes to “life” it is hazy because when list reproduction then what about sterile animals like ligers? I mean you wouldn’t argue a liger isn’t alive.
Granted I didn’t have the answers to any of his stuff but a lot of it sounded pretty batshit, I just didn’t have the knowledge to call him on it.
A tiger that has had a vasectomy is still alive, unless the operation went terribly wrong. The criteria for something being alive that has to do with reproductive ability is that there are some who can reproduce. I mean a mule, for example, cannot sire an offspring. But the mule is not dead, until it dies.
I’ve heard a biologist explain that the real question shouldn’t be “What is Life” But “What does life do” - too bad I can’t dredge up the source.
The problem I had with his definition is that he said it applies to everything, but something seemed off with that. The fact that everything decays doesn’t mean it is alive, and trying to have an definition that includes EVERYTHING seems useless.
The problem I had with his definition is that he said it applies to everything, but something seemed off with that. The fact that everything decays doesn’t mean it is alive, and trying to have an definition that includes EVERYTHING seems useless.I'm totally hip with using your intuition to help filter out crap, but you constantly use it to filter out the good stuff.
Maybe ease off on using your gut to think about some of this stuff.
Think with your head and ponder the many ideas that are handed to you. Your instant dismissal of everything, “because it seems off”, is preventing you from learning.
Xain good job on 3 point. You got his head spinning
...“theory” saying that atoms are alive and also saying that anything that decays is alive.A few of my problems with this are:
- there is no scientific theory related to this,
- atoms aren't alive by any definition that is used anywhere, and
- the definition of 'alive' includes a number of criteria, but decaying can't be one because literally everything breaks down.
Personal theories and definitions are fine if there’s a reason to create them, but there’s no point in pretending atoms are alive or that decay is relevant to the definition of life.
I know that defining life is a problem since you have viruses, fungi...Fungi is a Kingdom (highest order) in the taxonomic system of life, so no one who knows even high school science thinks there is a debate over whether it's considered alive.
Viruses are the only thing I know of that are borderline. They are ‘alive’ in every way except that they don’t have their own mechanism for reproduction, so they have to use other living things to produce more copies of themselves. I honestly don’t know what to think about them,
Intuition for me is just shorthand way of a long winded explanation.
Like when he told me his definition included all things, something seemed off about that but I couldn’t put my finger on it. His definition though I knew was off because EVERYTHING decays and breaks down, but I could not logically call a rock alive. He mentioned exceptions to the common rule like viruses or fungi, but even those are different from rocks and water.
It was just one thing in a LONG list of nonsense, such as saying that quantum physics proves that electrons can think. Though when I googled that it was really only a THEORY put for by Schrodinger, plus I don’t think that “think” means the same as when we use it.
Praise all be that is righteous! Those are a few good examples of you thinking for yourself.
This is a question that has a lot of questions, I think first I need to see what I want to know before I can determine.
I guess that’s a not very bright AI bot, designed to spread “GAMESBX.PRO” around the net.
I guess that’s a not very bright AI bot, designed to spread “GAMESBX.PRO” around the net.That makes me wonder if programs that can replicate and 'learn' are in any way alive? They have some similarities with organic life so maybe they are alive if you broaden the definition of life.
Long ago we only had organic life to define so we may have unnecessarily included certain things like the need for physical space and nutrients to survive. Are we prejudiced towards familiar types of life that might prevent us from seeing other forms?
Star Trek showed some encounters with unique life forms that didn’t resemble anything on earth. The life was fictional, but it showed that, theoretically, there can be life that isn’t organic or even physical (I think some were silicone based and some were just ‘energy’ (I forget the details)).
Good old Star Trek. I’m partial to TNG and all the rest are clumped together as a distant second.
TNG was fun, also there were a couple episodes where Data was struggling with his non-humanity which were totally fascinating and well played - impressed me as some of the best TV shows I’ve seen. I wouldn’t even mind watching them again, but will never go through the time and trouble of trying to figure out which ones they were. So I’m left with distant memories.
It’s on Netflix. I have some joint issues in my knees and ankles and haven’t been able to run for a few months, so last week I started to use the stationary bike in front of the TV. My goal is to watch two episodes a night while biking.
The first ones are way worse, production-wise, than I remember. There are times characters walk off the screen and bump the camera, or there are significant shadows on the backdrop that’s supposed to be a distant horizon. I must have been blind in my college days when they first came out.
I forgot how bluntly moralistic they were. No insinuated moral dilemmas, just club-you-over-the-head moral preaching. They tended to be good morals, so I don’t mind the points being made, but I’d like a lot more subtlety.
I’m just finishing the DS9 series. There are a few good ones, but so much soap opera in between. At least it is ending with an 8 part finale.
I wouldn’t be joining a forum if I’d known the meaning of life. The thing is, we have to look beyond ‘science’. I strongly believe that we’re limiting the extent of knowledge through the infinite-meaning word with words like ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’. Think out of the box.
As far as simulated life forms, like AI robots who will someday seem to have consciousness, being “alive” or not, idk.