h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that any system of chemical processes within a defined organism that can replicate its self singley or by joint procreation or is the product of either type of procreation until it ceases to function as a distinct organism, is alive.

So Ictoan can point at a cow lying on the floor, call it dead and be right and wrong. The cow as a collection of cells working together will cease but its eggs would still be viable for some time just as it will still contain other organism that will be begining to multiply as they consume the collection of cells that were once a live cow.

Fire will not be alive under this definition because although oxidation may may be one aspect of an organism no organism survies by one chemical process alone. I could be wrong though.

yes

Vix,

Yes? Yes what?

az

I were being agreeable....'yes', to the apple post, the apple is still alive after you picked it, afore blicky's, to whom which I also agree with....

All this being affable and agreeable is not like me, mebbe I'd better get some more coffee and take a few polemical tabs

Vix,

Sorry, just wasn't sure which posting you were replying to.

Polemical tabs!



az

Np, like I've said before...

I lose all manner of threads, plots n' thimbles in the quest for a full quilt...

So it's quite feasable that I may have just posted 'yes' for no reason whatsoever except that I might have been away with the or on another or just cleaning the keyboard whilst the computer is up and running....

I think the usual way to exclude fire is to include that life involve respiration.

Fire doesn't involve respiration, it involves combustion.

Although the idea of fire being alive is really quite weird, because its even arguable whether fire is actually a thing or just an image.

eh?

Progressive Existence

Whats that when it's at home smoking kippers for breakfast then

It's erm...
Existing...but progressively.

Innit ?

Rocks Exist, but they don't move on to be better,cleverer or more/less hairy, they might change but that's due to weather and other rocks being a bit rough with them.
They aren't alive.
They don't progress.

Or something.

Fire may not rely on respiration it is true, but then many single cell creatures don;t either. And they are alive. Also, have just looked up the definition of respiration. All the definitions include in them phrases such as 'multi-cellular' in the specific oxygen based breathing definitions or, in the general definition, " any of various energy-yielding oxidative reactions in living matter". So I would exclude Respiration as a definition of life on the basis that
a) it only appliezs to multi cellular life, thereby excluding all single cell life
b) The most general definition defines it in terms of life. Therefore to define life in terms of respiration leads to a circular argument and gets us nowhere.
The living matter here is obviously there to exclude things like fire which is an oxidative process.

" any system of chemical processes within a defined organism that can replicate its self singley or by joint procreation or is the product of either type of procreation until it ceases to function as a distinct organism, is alive."

So a chemical system capable of replicating itself is alive? Or is a product of such is alive? But what about DNA which is a chemical system capable of replication. Or certain (and I really can't remember the details here but shall do my best) certain silicate clays which form complex patterns and replicate. Or the process of cloning DNA, is the chemical mixture in the test tube alive since it is replicating?

As for not surviving by one chemical process alone not sure about that myself. Interesting point. Could it be that a key to the definition of life is complexity? After all, even so called simple cellular creatures are actually quite complex.

I hope y'all don't think I am being difficult here, just trying to get towards a definition!

How about interaction and adaptation to environment? Active adaptation / interaction since otherwise we gets rocks being alive again!

Not at all Ictoan you just keep at it...yaaay!

This is why I sorta like to adopt some of the Gaia theory and I say loosly 'some'.

From what I've read and I may be wrong, (I tend to flit around and not take everything in all at once or get distracted by shinies) in that theory, if a planet is considered chemically dead then its not life..

I have a problem with that in that I'm almost positively sure that can't be true.

The most interesting thing I have read recently about intelligence and who and what we are as humans was some research published at the end of last year. What it said was that there was some evidence, albeit small at the moment, of a feedback loop in the human (and presumably other) brains. The brain works on electricity as I'm sure you are aware. Electric currents and fields generate magnetic fields when they occur (same force - electro magentism). What was discovered was that the electrical activity in the brain caused a fluctuating magnetic field, which is only to be expected. However, a magnetic field can induce an electric curent (hence dynamos and the like). There is some evidence that this magnetic field can interact with the electrical processes of the brain thus modifying them. I find this fascinating and, as it has been shown that there is no one seat of 'self' in the brain perhaps this could be an insight into what makes me 'me'. The field would of necessity be extremly complex and subtle, given all the activity in the brain.

Now, although there is no conrete evidence that this electromagnetic interaction in the brain plays a major part in making me 'me', it does perhaps open up the possibility of a purely electromagnetic intelligence and therefore life. OK it is supposition at the moment but the possibility of a non-corporeal intelligence (and therefore life) that is scientifically possible (albeit on the fringes at the moment) is fascinating.

The reason I mention this is that if this were to be found to be true then our definitions of life would become oh so much more complicated. OK it is a what if,but until more research is done I do not think we can dismiss it completely out of hand.

I like what your saying..

..but doesn't that raise the issues of artificial life again...and if that is a life as such....what about grand theft auto...?

I'm just bouncin stuff

Speaking of life, today I saw briefly on the discovery channel a mouse with something being screwed into its head and I was disgusted..

That kind of thing makes me feel ill, why should we subject animals to that. Can't they ask for paid human volunteers? I mean how can you use the excuse that no one is going to want to volunteer to pain, suffering and side effects. Do they really think that mouse would if it could talk?

I realise that important medical data has been retrieved from such experiments, but still...I find it offensive.

Life is a minestrone...served up with Parmesan cheese...

The reason I put in the bit about "not a single chemical process" was to exclude fire and other stuff like enzymes. Oxidation and the various things enzymes do can be construed as live, like with yohgurt. They are just chemical processes or catalysts and though active do not reproduce even though they can increase in mass, size or numbers.


The thing about magentic feilds around the brain is that once the brain activity ceases to change so does the magnetic feild. The feild though it can influence the brain is always a product of brain activity. It cannot exist without the brain being alive.

Though I think it could be important in understanding collective conciouness.

Have a google for one hundreth mokey.

There is research that points to causes of bi-polar disorder, as being related to magnetic fields in the brain.

As for collective conciousness, mine isn't collected at all...

L.I.F.E

Lightening

Inspiration

fayed

Events

Just messing around

shit