Univeral Definition of Life
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: June 20th, 2011, 7:28 pm
Univeral Definition of Life
"Life is that which maintains itself"
By inference, to maintain itself would require energy and a metabolism of sorts. No reason to clutter the definition by adding this.
The definition does not eliminate auxiliary functions like motion, assembling protein, or reproduction. No reason to clutter the definition by adding these.
This definition covers various scenarios:
1. The natural transition from primordial soup of non-living chemicals to the first 'what-ever'. There is a clear cut criterion for that living system, if an outside stimulus was applied to the system and it responded and persisted as system, then that system is alive.
2. Life forms do not need to replicate or reproduce. Donkeys are sterile and cannot reproduce, yet they are alive. Someday, we may invent or discover a machine that is alive, but does not replicate. Reproduction is a function of life that allows many of them. This would help explain why the first non-reproducing life forms are so hard to find.
3. Virus do not maintain themselves, hence are not alive.
Are there any criteria that needs to be addressed or scenarios that conflict with this condensed definition?
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: September 11th, 2014, 7:21 am
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
Your reference to viruses indicates that you are thinking of some sort of active process. Fair enough.
Is the Sun alive? The outward pressure of fusion generated energy balances gravitational forces to maintain a dynamic system. Granted the Gaia theory opens the possibility for considering Earth as a life form... but isn't considering any positive feedback system as being a life form going a little far?
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: June 20th, 2011, 7:28 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
“Maintaining” is a verb, and I was hinging on this to help condense fluff out of the definitions.
From “maintaining itself”, I was hoping that it could be inferred that “there would be changes that would otherwise effect it, but life reacts so as not to lose itself”. A rock erodes and losses itself. The sun is a balance of gravity and fusion. Should an external influence start to cool it down, the fusion would not kick up to counter act this… hence the sun is not alive. If there is a mechanism that did counter act this hypothetical cooling action, then the sun could be considered alive. Gaia, I would entertain as alive, but to the extent of the crust. James Miller's work on living systems does a good job of pointing out the hierarchy of life.
This definition was devised to help illuminate what life is without putting on pre-conceived biased filters. This would help us indentify life outside of our daily perspectives.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
"Life is that which has awareness."
Can we imagine an entity being aware but not being "alive"? And if so, can you give any examples?
I gave this definition mainly to give a psychological, rather than a "physical" perspective, which I feel "hones in" on the issue more definitively than any definition based "on the physics".
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
- Location: Australia
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
Life must have originated as viruses before it evolved into higher forms. The act of mammalian fertilization is that of a virus penetrating a bacterium. Thus, the virus maintains itself with the help of the bacterium, hence it is alive.David_the_simple wrote: 3. Virus do not maintain themselves, hence are not alive.
Are there any criteria that needs to be addressed or scenarios that conflict with this condensed definition?
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
I agree with you that all conscious beings are living beings; but your definition is inadequate, because not all living beings are conscious beings. Plants aren't, and certain primitive animals aren't either.Atreyu wrote:Here is a definition I'd like you to consider, Dave, although I'm not necessarily endorsing it right now. "Life is that which has awareness." Can we imagine an entity being aware but not being "alive"? And if so, can you give any examples?
-- Updated November 5th, 2014, 9:23 am to add the following --
"Yes, it is true that in this modern era we know unequivocally that there is no élan vital, that living things are made up of the same 'dead' molecules as non-living ones, but somehow the manner in which those molecules interact in a holistic ensemble results in something very special—us, and every other living thing on this planet."
(p. ix)
"Living and non-living entities are strikingly different..."
(p. 1)
"[T]he moment some non-metabolic (downhill) replicator acquired an energy-gathering capability, could be thought of as the moment that life began."
(p. 158)
"Abiogenesis and biological evolution are one continuous process—abiogenesis (the transformation of non-living matter to earliest life) is the low-complexity phase, biological evolution is just the high-complexity phase. That unification serves to clarify the physical process that led from simple abiotic beginnings right through to complex life. By uncovering the process that connects inanimate to animate, the essence of what it is to be alive begins to materialize. The emergence of life was initiated by the emergence of a simple replicating system, because that seemingly inconsequential event opened the door to a distinctly different kind of chemistry—replicative chemistry. Entering the world of replicative chemistry reveals the existence of that other kind of stability in nature, the dynamic kinetic stability of things that are good at making more of themselves. Exploring the world of replicative chemistry helps explain why a simple primordial replicating system would have been expected to complexify over time. The reason: to increase its stability—its dynamic kinetic stability (DKS).
Yes, living systems involve chemical reactions, lots of them, but the essence of life, the process that started it all off, was replication."
(p. 162)
"Biology then is just a particularly complex kind of replicative chemistry and the living state can be thought of as a new state of matter, the replicative state of matter, whose properties derive from the special kind of stability that characterizes replicating entities—DKS [dynamic kinetic stability]. That leads to a working definition of life: a self-sustaining kinetically stable dynamic reaction network derived from the replication reaction.
(pp. 163-4)
"So there we have it. Even though life is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, the life principle is surprisingly simple. Life is just the resultant network of chemical reactions that emerges from the continuing cycle of replication, mutation, complexification, and selection, when it operates on particular chain-like molecules—in the case of life on Earth, the nucleic acids. It is possible that other chemical systems could also exhibit this property, but so far this question has yet to be explored experimentally. Life then is just the chemical consequences that derive from the power of exponential growth operating on certain replicating chemical systems."
(p. 164)
(Pross, Addy. What is Life? How Chemistry becomes Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.)
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: June 20th, 2011, 7:28 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
Thanks for the challenge. The model would progress as follows: Life would maintain itself. As the environmental conditions allowed more life, with energy and materials being pumped into the system, more complex life forms would spawn. They would be capable of more functions. At some point, reproduction would be possible. At this point the laws of natural selection would kick in. Colonies would form adding new variables/dimensions to the equation. At some point in the future, sentience would form, again adding new variables and dimensions to the equation.
If we entertain that there are more “planes” of existence, the definition should still hold. For example, sentience has a degree of resiliency and at that perspective is alive. I am aware of my existence whether in pain or pleasure.
DarwinX,
I would consider that virus or virus like compound may have existed before reproduction was possible. By themselves, they just sit there. It is the machinery of life that mis-interprets them as self and starts reproducing viruses. Hence, viruses are like a sheet of paper going through a copy machine.
-- Updated 05 Nov 2014 08:51 to add the following --
Consul: "...Life then is just the chemical consequences that derive from the power of exponential growth operating on certain replicating chemical systems."
The proposed definition of life is attempting to be more abstract and definitive. By adding what it is made of, we limit life to just those materials. By adding other functions , we limit life to just those functions. Hence, the proposed definition brings up the bare minimum to be called life. This allows a line to be drawn between non-life materials/energy/systems and living materials/energy/systems.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
All life on Earth is based on carbon, the forth most abundant element in the universe. The human body contains about 18% carbon and 60% hydrogen and oxygen, in the form of water. The only element missing from the top four, most common elements seems to be helium. Maybe helium is that which we refer to as conciousness or the soul.
I like the definition "life is that which maintains itself". Life is a state of balanced equilibrium, conversion of energy from one form to another. In one end and out the other, life is a process. Plants convert the energy from the Sun. Humans convert animal and plant proteins as well as oxygen to carbon dioxide. Life maintains itself until the cycle is broken.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
I said "awareness", not "consciousness". And in this connection all conscious entities have awareness, but not all entities with awareness are necessarily conscious. Awareness is the "raw material" from which consciousness can develop.Consul wrote: I agree with you that all conscious beings are living beings; but your definition is inadequate, because not all living beings are conscious beings. Plants aren't, and certain primitive animals aren't either.
And if you are suggesting that plants and certain primitive animals have no awareness of any kind whatsoever, I must disagree. I would argue that all entities classified as "alive" have some kind of awareness, no matter how primitive, and that it is even quite possible that there is some kind of very primitive awareness associated with all matter, a view often called "panpsychism" and of which a thread was recently in discussion here. And I would urge others here to consider this view in light of the fact that science is unable to draw any fine line between "life" and "non-life", and also of entities with or without awareness, which IMO should lead one to consider whether or not there is any fine line in the first place.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
Are the chemical reaction in developing film, aware of the images they are producing, or is the image just a construct in the mind of the observer?
If you take 100 people from different cultures and put them in a room and ring a bell, all 100 people will hear a bell. Where did this knowledge of what a bell sounds like, come from? We inherite the world from our parents and the interpretations of all that we experience are already programmed into our genes.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
For example, viruses seem to be borderline cases of living beings; but I think there are and can be no borderline cases of conscious beings, which is not to say that there is no epistemic uncertainty about what animal species have (the capacity for) consciousness. But epistemic uncertainty is different from ontic indeterminacy.Atreyu wrote:I said "awareness", not "consciousness". And in this connection all conscious entities have awareness, but not all entities with awareness are necessarily conscious. Awareness is the "raw material" from which consciousness can develop.
And if you are suggesting that plants and certain primitive animals have no awareness of any kind whatsoever, I must disagree. I would argue that all entities classified as "alive" have some kind of awareness, no matter how primitive, and that it is even quite possible that there is some kind of very primitive awareness associated with all matter, a view often called "panpsychism" and of which a thread was recently in discussion here. And I would urge others here to consider this view in light of the fact that science is unable to draw any fine line between "life" and "non-life", and also of entities with or without awareness, which IMO should lead one to consider whether or not there is any fine line in the first place.
The words "awareness" and "consciousness" are very often used synonymously, but I know that one can draw a meaningful distinction between consciousness-independent functional/informational awareness and experiential/phenomenal awareness = consciousness.
"Awareness can be broadly analyzed as a state wherein we have access to some information, and can use that information in the control of behavior. One can be aware of an object in the environment, of a state of one's body, or one's mental state, among other things. Awareness of information generally brings with it the ability to knowingly direct behavior depending on that information. This is clearly a functional notion. In everyday language, the term 'awareness' is often used synonymously with 'consciousness,' but I will reserve the term for the functional notion I have described here. …
Consciousness is always accompanied by awareness, but awareness as I have described it need not be accompanied by consciousness. One can be aware of a fact without any particular associated phenomenal experience, for instance. However, it may be possible to constrain the notion of awareness so that it turns out to be coextensive with phenomenal consciousness."
(Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 28)
So, in the purely functionalistic sense, even nonconscious animals and plants may be said have some kind of awareness. But their physiological sensitivity (responsiveness or reactiveness) to physical or chemical stimuli or signals (signal-information) is not to be confused with sentience in the psychological sense. Even a simple technical device such as a motion detector can be said to have functional awareness.
Panpsychism is not defined as the view that all things have functional awareness, but as the view that all things have experiential awareness = (phenomenal) consciousness.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: June 20th, 2011, 7:28 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
Upon further consideration… Quantum mechanics puts a high stake on how observation influences the outcome. In addition, there appears to be a bit of ‘quantum entanglement’ going on. Phosphorescence is not spontaneous, but electrons give up their energy with an almost ‘at will’ timing. This would be an interesting thread to pursue. But as I see it, this would be a phenomenon that is substratum to life, and as such, life inherits this quality along everything else.
Given the works of Jame Miller on living systems, living systems have a hierarchy of eight levels. It may well be the same with awareness. The most fundimental awareness being quantum level, yet to be understood. higher up would include life. Higher up yet would be a the type of awareness that we hominids enjoy.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
- Mgrinder
- Premium Member
- Posts: 904
- Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
- Contact:
Re: Univeral Definition of Life
For instance, the "certain way" that energy is expended in an organism includes the organism maintaining itself in a certain body shape, expending energy in order to get food, reproducing if possible, making new cells to replace old ones, adapting to the changing temperature, and so on.
Fire doesn't work in this certain way, neither do rocks. At the same time, the above is not nearly an exhaustive list, nor can I represent the "pattern" or "way" or "form" of energy use over time that I am pointing to mathematically. However, there seems to be a definite pattern of energy use that organisms engage in, but how to define it seems a mystery.
And also, quite mysteriously, we know this "pattern" or "way" when we see it. If we could only represent this "pattern" mathematically, then we would be able to define life, I would think.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023