The following is the definition of life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life

It includes....
1. Organization
2. Metabolism
3. Growth
4. Adaptation
5. Response to stimuli
6. Reproduction


So here we go!

1. Organization
Stars are organized. They have a distinct structure. They have a nucleus. They also have hydrogens and many other substances that are analogous to cells.

2. Metabolism
Stars have a life cycle. They are born when hydrogen comes together. The hydrogen "makes" energy and keeps the star alive. The star evolves and produces more kinds of materials that produce greater energies.

3. Growth
Stars grow. They have entire life cycles. They grow both in density and size.

4. Adaptation
Stars adapt to their environments. Binary systems are a good example of that.

5. Response to stimuli
When two stars interact, they respond to stimuli. A black hole with a blue straggler for instance...

6. Reproduction
When stars explode in supernovae they are reproducing.



More on stars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/HRDiagram.gif




... now disprove me! :eek:

With the sound of music...

1. Organization
Pieces of music are organized. They have a distinct structure. They have a rhythm. They also have notes and many other frequencies that are analogous to cells.


2. Metabolism
Pieces have a life cycle. They are born when notes comes together. The series of notes "makes" music and keeps the piece alive. The piece evolves and produces more kinds of frequencies that produce greater emotion.

3. Growth
Pieces of music grow. They have entire life cycles. They grow both in density and size.

4. Adaptation
Music adapts to its environments. Genres are a good example of that.

5. Response to stimuli
When two music tracks interact, they respond to stimuli. A straight track and one for scratching for instance...

6. Reproduction
When CD's are played back they are reproducing.

I would define life as something that can express itself in some way.

I would define life as something that can express itself in some way.

A poor definition. What do you mean express? Musically? Drawings? Emo?

How about nature? It expresses itself as clear skys to tornados.

Do stars decompose organic material?

I hardly think "affected by gravity" counts as response to stimuli. Also, the definition of life is very loose, and I'd like to see some mention of self-preservation there - common to all life, but certainly not present in stars.

Well I can see what Thruthseeker means by stars are alive, but it doesn't could as life in the sense humans would recognize it and use it for food or balance out the food chain.

A poor definition. What do you mean express?

If something can express itself, it has a self, and self is life (Christ), consciousness. Everything can express itself in some way, but when the self is in a rock, it can't express itself as much as if it is in a human. The body is a limitation. Only a human can learn to express himself (God) entirely.

Do stars decompose organic material?

What's the difference between organic and dead matter?

If the matter of stars was not alive, how could they burn and shine? How could they move, rotate, travel in space? How would movement be possible without self, consciousness, life?

If something can express itself, it has a self, and self is life (Christ), consciousness. Everything can express itself in some way, but when the self is in a rock, it can't express itself as much as if it is in a human. The body is a limitation. Only a human can learn to express himself (God) entirely.

Please leave religion out of this. I want a definition of expression in terms of human observation. If I look at a rock, how do I know it is not expressing itself?



What's the difference between organic and dead matter?

They can be the same or not... organic means carbon containing.

If the matter of stars was not alive, how could they burn and shine? How could they move, rotate, travel in space? How would movement be possible without self, consciousness, life?

Nuclear fusion... it's made of plasma.

Big bang.

Please leave religion out of this.

Impossible, I'm interrested in religions.

If I look at a rock, how do I know it is not expressing itself?

A rock expresses itself by drawing things towards it (gravity) and by resisting (magnetic repulsion).

They can be the same or not... organic means carbon containing.

Why would carbon be needed for something to be alive?

Nuclear fusion... it's made of plasma.

What causes the nuclear fusions?

I think stars are rocks like any planet, but because they're so much bigger, other rocks started to dance around them as if they were gods or kings. The stars became happy and started to rotate fast so they began to shine and became more liquid and fiery.

Physicists recognize four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. These correspond to the four elements of the ancients: earth, water, air, and fire – which were followed by the fifth element: ether.

I would define life as something that can express itself in some way.

What is expression then? It is simply repeating what one has viewed from the past somehow. Even in an apparant random form, all the basics are previously seen and thus only replications of what was originally transmitted.

In other words, each star is unique and with being so, its solar flares express itself in a fashion only that star would produce.

Stars are live.

...so what if stars, rocks, music, or anything else as such is/are alive? what matters is wether they are conscious, and wether they are reflective or not....stars certainly arent.

I just have a problem with people tweaking definitions to make something that is not. I try not to tweak them myself, but when I cannot think of other words to use, I try to work around it. Or maybe I am just being hypocritical. Either way, I still think we should not tweak definitions as it makes communication of abstract ideas harder than it needs to be.

I definetly agree, though my post was directed more at those who are claiming that these things really are alive.

Yea, my post was a reply to you and the others. I was agreeing with you and also offering my two cents.

But I think what we consider to be "alive" (as in, plants, roaches, humans, unicorns) is a subset of a general description of motion and order.

animals are more alive than plants, plants are more alive than "rocks". if plants are alive, why not matter too? how could lifeless matter become living? they're just definitions, it's all alive.

Are you wanting to define life as specific motion and order of matter, or as something metaphysical?

animals are more alive than plants, plants are more alive than "rocks". if plants are alive, why not matter too? how could lifeless matter become living? they're just definitions, it's all alive.

exactly. We try too hard to make ourselves to be something so unique and special as if reoccuring interactions don't take place anywhere else than in our lives. Living is simply enabling the same circumstances to continue.
If you wish to join consciousness and life to mean the same, then I would have to argue. A computer would then have to be alive. It interacts with the environment and processes information. I think a star is more alive than a computer.

Well I think we are all arguing using different definitions of life. I can see how you consider a plant alive but not a rock. However, I think trying to argue whether something is "alive" or not is a pointless conversation because there is not even an accepted definition of it. I think it would be best that people talk about ideas without introducing ambigious words. Asking whether or not something is "alive" will never be resolved.

Hence, this thread is pointless.

Life is something that strives for survival.

There we go again...

We don't have a definition for life. We don't even know if a virus is alive or not! Our classification is more based on pure guess then anything else. :bugeye:

I think that maybe life is a meaningless word. The more I think about it, the more it seems so. What are the conditions for life? Where does one dry the fine line between alive and not-alive? When does a human fetus become alive? Are the eggs always alive? Is sperm alive?

"Life" the word is just pointless.

"Life" the word is just pointless.

It isn't. Everything is alive, but to a different degree (according to how much it can express itself)

It isn't. Everything is alive, but to a different degree (according to how much it can express itself)

Well you are helping me prove my point. You and I would say a rock is alive... it's in motion (internally). However, most people would say a rock is not alive; it does not have life. There is a disagreement about the definition, which extends to all extremes. Some say only humans have life and animals, plants, viruses, etc., are not, just biological machines as they lack conciousness (well it can be debated as I have done before, but just assume).

My solution would be to make a SET definition of life that can easily be applied. From there, we use broader definitions to describe a rock's internal motion that DOES NOT apply to those that we agree upon is alive.

The definition I think that would work (in theory anyway) would have to deal with awareness.

Life is consciousness. If something is more alive than something else it means that it's more conscious [of itself].

To Truthseeker:

Semantics, semantics. You're connecting words which are meant to have multiple definitions to single definitions and concepts.

That's like me saying that artichokes posess blood pumping organs --because they have hearts.

Taking from your post, a star being born is a different concept than a human being born, and a star dying is different from a living organism dying.

You could compare humans with trees and you would get the same result you just said, Possumking- and yet, we think trees are alive.

So what is it? Is everything alive or our definition of life is too broad?

Fuck... what IS life?

Fuck... what IS life?

I am the way, truth and LIFE. The self is life. If you believe in yourself you will never die. The self is not a body or a person.

So what is it? Is everything alive or our definition of life is too broad?

Fuck... what IS life?

Read my posts?

Look, I know that we all have this intuitive idea of what is alive or what is not. However, this idea is too general because we never had past experiences of something less general and being told whether it is alive or not. All we had experience with is being told you are alive, the neighbor is alive, the trees are alive, bacteria is alive. We were told rocks are never alive and same with Mars.

It seems to me we are making up a word to describe their animation, then we try to find something common among all these that is not shared with things we do not consider alive, like rocks. However it is my contention we will never find such.

Read my posts?
Yes. But they are far from enough, Abbie! :p

Gosh, even the current scientific explanation on life is not nearly enough to explain it! :eek:

What is it that makes life uniquely distinguishable from non-life?

Self organized adaptive structured complexity.

What is this? It is the ability of the thing itself to construct new sub structures from raw materials that add to the structured complexity of the "thing" and to use those structures to adapt to a changing environment.

Stars do not exhibit this.

Crystals do not exhibit this.

Do viruses do this? I don't know.

Bacteria do.

Plants do.

Animals do.

What do you think?

Self organized adaptive structured complexity.

Why would that be required for something to be alive?

Why would that be required for something to be alive?
I did not say it was a requirement.

I said it was a way to distinguish living from non-living.

It's my theory, so try to come up with what you think are exceptions and I will try to defend it. K?

The following is the definition of life:
... now disprove me! :eek:
Life needs essential proteins and DNA. Even viruses have protein and DNA. Stars do not. Thus, stars are simply stars. Balls of hot gasses, nothing more, nothing less.

Is everything alive or our definition of life is too broad?

Fuck... what IS life?

I think our definition of life is too broad in the sense that we allow it to have figurative meanings that we unintentionally confuse with the literal meanings.

In ^that way, the life cycle of a star uses a figurative life instead of a literal life.

Life needs essential proteins and DNA. Even viruses have protein and DNA. Stars do not. Thus, stars are simply stars. Balls of hot gasses, nothing more, nothing less.


Ah, but the scientific community views viruses as non-living. I view viruses as living, but its still generally accepted that they are not.

What is it that makes life uniquely distinguishable from non-life?

Self organized adaptive structured complexity.

What is this? It is the ability of the thing itself to construct new sub structures from raw materials that add to the structured complexity of the "thing" and to use those structures to adapt to a changing environment.

Stars do not exhibit this.
Yes, they do. There's a huge difference between a young star and a white dwarf. The difference lies on how the star uses its resources to "create" more energy. Younger stars have mostly hydrogen. The oldest even have iron.

Life needs essential proteins and DNA. Even viruses have protein and DNA. Stars do not. Thus, stars are simply stars. Balls of hot gasses, nothing more, nothing less.
So ALL life in the ENTIRE universe works EXACTLY the same way it does here? :rolleyes:

I think our definition of life is too broad in the sense that we allow it to have figurative meanings that we unintentionally confuse with the literal meanings.

In ^that way, the life cycle of a star uses a figurative life instead of a literal life.
Well, let's not mix definitions here...

Yes, they do. There's a huge difference between a young star and a white dwarf. The difference lies on how the star uses its resources to "create" more energy. Younger stars have mostly hydrogen. The oldest even have iron.
Something tells me that no matter what I say, you will counter it with whatever weak argument you happen to find lying around.

How dos a star exhibit structured complexity? Please be specific.

I said it was a way to distinguish living from non-living.

What makes you think non-living things exist?

Are there sick people?
Are there healthy people?

Either all people are sick (to different degrees) or all people are healthy (to different degree). There can't be real duality.

Dead and alive, sick and healthy are two sides of the same thing.

Why makes you think non-living things exist?

Are there sick people?
Are there healthy people?

Either all people are sick (to different degrees) or all people are healthy (to different degree). There can't be real duality.

Dead and alive, sick and healthy are two sides of the same thing.
Sorry, but I will not engage in a debate on this statement.

Sorry, but I will not engage in a debate on this statement.

is it becuz you're scared?

Yes.

The thing is theres no finite point at which something stops being 'dead matter' and takes on a quality of 'aliveness' we're just creating subdivisions in nature to express our perception of how closesly something fits in with our own version of being alive.
On a universal scale id rather say that everything was alive or dead (though id probably say alive), than lumping everything into two catagories.

Something tells me that no matter what I say, you will counter it with whatever weak argument you happen to find lying around.

How dos a star exhibit structured complexity? Please be specific.
OMG! How about studying some astrophysics, please!?!!? :eek: :bugeye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Sun

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/SunLayers.png


Geeez! I never expected that from you superluminal...

The thing is theres no finite point at which something stops being 'dead matter' and takes on a quality of 'aliveness' we're just creating subdivisions in nature to express our perception of how closesly something fits in with our own version of being alive.
On a universal scale id rather say that everything was alive or dead (though id probably say alive), than lumping everything into two catagories.
Thank you! Someone is thinking outside the box! :)

OMG! How about studying some astrophysics, please!?!!? :eek: :bugeye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Sun

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/SunLayers.png


Geeez! I never expected that from you superluminal...
Hold on a minute there pardner. I'm well aware of the basic structure of the sun my friend. By "structured complexity" I am not referring to structure alone or complexity alone. Obviously anything can have some structure. And material things can be quite complex but completely disorganized.

So the sun has structure.
Let's see what my definition says:

SL:

Self organized adaptive structured complexity.

It is the ability of the thing itself to construct new sub structures from raw materials that add to the structured complexity of the "thing" and to use those structures to adapt to a changing environment.

Ok. So let me elaborate.

Self organized adaptive structured complexity:

- Self organized: The thing itself generates internal organization based on self-contained instructions of whatever form.

- Adaptive: Adjusts it's behavior and structure (in real time or over evolutionary time) in response to environmental changes. Note that this does not mean that a dropped rock is "adapting" to gravity by falling. Just as a star is not "adapting" to gravity by burning higher order fusion products as it ages. These are fundamental physical laws that all matter will respond to, and therefore do not constitute a distinguishing criteria.

- Structured complexity: By structure I mean organization. A crystal is highly structured. A star is not nearly so structured (layered regions of gas/plasma in a highly disordered state). A puddle of water is almost completely unstructured. By complexity I mean many interacting and interdependent parts serving one or more functions. The more interacting parts,interdependencies and functions they each serve, the more complex the system is. A puddle of water has a degree of complexity. So does the sun. Compare these to the complexity of a single bacterium.

Note that anything can share one or more of these attributes and still not be "alive". I claim that anything that shares all of these is life. Anything that dosen't is not.

Prove me wrong. This is fun.

The thing is theres no finite point at which something stops being 'dead matter' and takes on a quality of 'aliveness' we're just creating subdivisions in nature to express our perception of how closesly something fits in with our own version of being alive.
On a universal scale id rather say that everything was alive or dead (though id probably say alive), than lumping everything into two catagories.
There's a reason we make categories. And words have definitions. If you wish to call a solid crystal of silicon dioxide "alive" be my guest. Don't be suprised at the reactions you get though. :m:

Self organized adaptive structured complexity:

- Self organized: The thing itself generates internal organization based on self-contained instructions of whatever form.
What is DNA? It is a molecule, right? What is H2? It's a molecule, right? Both of them generates internal organization. The difference is that we are organized through DNA and the sun is organized through H2.

- Adaptive: Adjusts it's behavior and structure (in real time or over evolutionary time) in response to environmental changes. Note that this does not mean that a dropped rock is "adapting" to gravity by falling. Just as a star is not "adapting" to gravity by burning higher order fusion products as it ages. These are fundamental physical laws that all matter will respond to, and therefore do not constitute a distinguishing criteria.
What is the difference between a physical law and a behaviour? What is adaptation? Is it just an effect? Or is it a response to some change? What is the difference? What happens when a young star gets together with a black hole? Behaviour?

- Structured complexity: By structure I mean organization. A crystal is highly structured. A star is not nearly so structured (layered regions of gas/plasma in a highly disordered state).
How about an amoeba? I could easily claim that the sun is more structured then an amoeba! ;)

A puddle of water is almost completely unstructured. By complexity I mean many interacting and interdependent parts serving one or more functions.
Don't the parts of the sun have different functions? All parts of the sun have the same goal (to keep the sun intact). That's why the parts interact and you can see the differences of pressure.

The more interacting parts,interdependencies and functions they each serve, the more complex the system is. A puddle of water has a degree of complexity. So does the sun. Compare these to the complexity of a single bacterium.
So a red giant is less complex then a bacterium?

Note that anything can share one or more of these attributes and still not be "alive". I claim that anything that shares all of these is life. Anything that dosen't is not.
Stars are alive. :D

Prove me wrong. This is fun.
Yes, it's fun :)

What is DNA? It is a molecule, right? What is H2? It's a molecule, right? Both of them generates internal organization. The difference is that we are organized through DNA and the sun is organized through H2.
No. DNA and it's associated enzymes make thousands of other structures (protiens) that are not DNA. H2 does not code for anything. It sits there and moves only under the influence of fundamental forces.

What is the difference between a physical law and a behaviour? What is adaptation? Is it just an effect? Or is it a response to some change? What is the difference? What happens when a young star gets together with a black hole? Behaviour?
Sure it's "behavior". Any action can be called behavior. But a young star being sucked into a black hole is not "living" behavior. It is just like the H2 molecule above. The star sits there and gets sucked in by a simple, fundamental force.

How about an amoeba? I could easily claim that the sun is more structured then an amoeba! ;)
You could claim it but you'd be wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115355.htm

Don't the parts of the sun have different functions? All parts of the sun have the same goal (to keep the sun intact). That's why the parts interact and you can see the differences of pressure.
So? That's one criteria. The parts of an electric razor have different functions too.

So a red giant is less complex then a bacterium?
Yes.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461520266/Anatomy_of_a_Simple_Bacterium.html

Note that each of those things pointed to has enough underlying complexity itself to fill a textbook.

Stars are alive. :D
Nah.

Yes, it's fun :)
Yea.

So ALL life in the ENTIRE universe works EXACTLY the same way it does here? :rolleyes:

First of all, that's a great point.

However, the only life we know is the life on earth --basically meaning that any earthling definition for life is utterly incomplete (That is, of course, unless we find some undeniable proof that we are the only life/type of life.)

I still think the point is being missed.

Well what do you expect, Absane? Don't all threads go off topic? :)

No. DNA and it's associated enzymes make thousands of other structures (protiens) that are not DNA. H2 does not code for anything. It sits there and moves only under the influence of fundamental forces.
So what? That doesn't disprove that H2 is a component of the sun just like DNA is a component of us!

Sure it's "behavior". Any action can be called behavior. But a young star being sucked into a black hole is not "living" behavior. It is just like the H2 molecule above. The star sits there and gets sucked in by a simple, fundamental force.
Isn't all behaviour a simple fundamental force?

You could claim it but you'd be wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050224115355.htm
Oh, how lovely. Learning everyday... :D

Still... what about mitochondrae! :D

So? That's one criteria. The parts of an electric razor have different functions too.
Yes

Which point is being missed, Abbie?

Which point is being missed, Abbie?


I'll figure it out or remember when I am sober. SOrrry,,

Well what do you expect, Absane? Don't all threads go off topic? :)


Yea.. that is for true,.

Does the sun use and produce amino acids and proteins?
No.
Thus, not life.

OMG! Someone is EXTREMELY close-minded! :bugeye:
Why would life be only possible the way it is here!?!?!?!? :bugeye:

Besides, take a look at the definition of life. According to the definition, stars ARE alive! :eek:

I wonder why we are even still arguing this... everyone is arguing whether something is life or not... but few people fail to see that the definition is neither agreed upon or will never be so because everyone has different experiences of the world, and hence different views. No one argues what a "noun" is because we were all told exactly what it is. Life, on the other hand, we grow up with experiences based on what we are told is alive and what is not, but no one is told what LIFE really is. And now it is too late to define it because arguments like this will keep that from happening.

Stop arguing.

I think there are intelligent beings on stars but they're not visible to us because they're so different.

I wonder why we are even still arguing this...

Because we want to. We want because we think there is an answer. We want an answer because everything searches for perfection. Everything searches for perfection because consciousness is a separation, a duality. Consciousness was created because of the aspects of emptiness. The emptiness fills us all. We are infinite, finite, complete and incomplete.

Life, on the other hand, we grow up with experiences based on what we are told is alive and what is not, but no one is told what LIFE really is.

Life is everything, obviously. The spectrum of light goes from red to blue. We can say that "alive" things are part of red and "dead" things part of blue, but both are part of the light of life.

Stop arguing.

Impossible. As long as there are people they will not stop arguing.

Does the sun use and produce amino acids and proteins?
No.
Thus, not life.

tru dat.

Why would life be only possible the way it is here!?
Because it's the only plausible and practical way for life to occur. Until we discover otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, I shall assume the default position.

!?!?!?!?
Multiple exclamation points are a sure sign of a disease mind.

Besides, take a look at the definition of life. According to the definition, stars ARE alive! :eek:
A star is a ball of heated gasses. They do not contain carbon or proteins essential for life. In addition, life requires water, which does not exist on the sun, due to the high temperature.

This is ridiculous. Life could take many forms. There's no reason for it to be confined to the exact way it is right here- that's simply retarded. :bugeye:

No, it can't. The definition of an organic substance is something that has carbon as a part of it. That's the only thing that can make an organism: organic substances and proteins. A star has neither, thus is not life. It's a very simple biological fact.

When you examine what ALL consider to be "alive," you see it is a collection of matter with the subjective property of organization of motion of parts within its "body."

That is all I got to say right now.

No, it can't. The definition of an organic substance is something that has carbon as a part of it. That's the only thing that can make an organism: organic substances and proteins. A star has neither, thus is not life. It's a very simple biological fact.

No, I have heard that it is quite possible alien beings can exist as silicon. All we know about "living beings" is what we know about our own life.

This is ridiculous. Life could take many forms. There's no reason for it to be confined to the exact way it is right here- that's simply retarded. :bugeye:
And the title of this thread is...?

No, I have heard that it is quite possible alien beings can exist as silicon.
In science fiction, not in scientific fact.

In science fiction, not in scientific fact.

Explain to me why a living being must be made of carbon-containing compounds.

Here is algae with a silica cell wall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

No, I have heard that it is quite possible alien beings can exist as silicon. All we know about "living beings" is what we know about our own life.
Thank you. :bugeye:

Examples of different forms of life...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea
"Many archaeans are extremophiles. Some live at very high temperatures, often above 100°C, as found in geysers and black smokers. Others are found in very cold habitats or in highly-saline, acidic, or alkaline water. However, other archaeans are mesophiles, and have been found in environments like marshland, sewage, sea water and soil. Many methanogenic archaea are found in the digestive tracts of animals such as ruminants, termites, and humans. Archaea are usually harmless to other organisms and none are known to cause disease."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetotactic_bacteria
"Magnetotactic bacteria (or MTB) are a class of bacteria discovered in the 1960s, that exhibit the peculiar ability to orient themselves along the magnetic field lines of Earth's magnetic field. The term magnetotaxis has been coined to describe the biological phenomenon upon which these microorganisms tend to move in response to the magnetic characteristics of the environment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobacterium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroplast

When you examine what ALL consider to be "alive," you see it is a collection of matter with the subjective property of organization of motion of parts within its "body."

That is all I got to say right now.

Ok, I got a question to add to this: How must matter be organized to be considered capable of life? How about motion of it's internal parts?

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_origin
Interesting smaple:
"The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered. However, there are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis
Possible predecessor of RNA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus
Giant virus...

Ok, I got a question to add to this: How must matter be organized to be considered capable of life? How about motion of it's internal parts?
Does a cell know that it lives in a living body? How about bacterium in our stomachs and intestines?

Another question... If I eat a whole bunch of bacterium that can break down cellulose, would I, then, be able to eat trees? :D

Does a cell know that it lives in a living body? How about bacterium in our stomachs and intestines?

Let's not bring up topics that are not relevent to my post. The point of my post is to look at a whole living being. Even if a whole being is made up of a lot of small living beings, what kind of organization must there be of these smaller units to make the whole collection "one living being?"

Well, you should answer that question! It is you that doubt the stars are alive! ;)

Well, you should answer that question! It is you that doubt the stars are alive! ;)

I want you or anyone else to answer that question. I ask them because I do not know how to answer them at the time I ask them or any time afterward unless I receive input of somekind.

And I never said stars are not alive. My problem is the definition of life and how no one will ever agree on a definition.

Science has defined life, expectably, according to the empirical data available. If you wish to 'deviate' and have a catholic definition of what life is/could be, that's fine. But then you're fixing the definition to prove your point and therefore leaving little room for discussion.

Science has defined life, expectably, according to the empirical data available. If you wish to 'deviate' and have a catholic definition of what life is/could be, that's fine. But then you're fixing the definition to prove your point and therefore leaving little room for discussion.

Who is? Me? My point is that it is not specific enough nor will it ever be. Where is the "fine line" that differentiates rocks from dolphins? Maybe rocks do not reproduce? I am sure I could conjure up a way that they do.

I don't know what you mean by "specific enough" and I also do not know what you would consider "specific enough". I do know that biological science has made many good discoveries but has not yet called for a revision of the term 'life'. Secondly: I do not say that 'life' as defined by science is objective; far from it. In fact, I stated that the definition was made from the empirical data available. Maybe there really are silicon-based "life forms" but, until discovery of such, don't you find it unsurprising that science relegates itself to empiricism?

I strongly suggest reviewing the following link: http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/old.web.classes/bimm100.FA04/lecture/Oct_12,_2004_reading.pdf

Although the above link claims (correctly) that there is no stringent (in the mathematical/physics sense) definition of life, it does not deny that there are characteristics which we can empirically associate with 'life forms'. The most fundamental being the cell.


Do you know of any 'life forms' without cells?

Does a cell know that it lives in a living body?

not more than we know that we're living in the body of a really, really big organism, the "body of christ".

and you know what. the cells are inhabited by little intelligent beings like us, but they aren't aware of the great "body of the cell".

Do you know of any 'life forms' without cells?

yep, atoms.

Science has defined life, expectably, according to the empirical data available. If you wish to 'deviate' and have a catholic definition of what life is/could be, that's fine. But then you're fixing the definition to prove your point and therefore leaving little room for discussion.
Catholic!?!?!?!

Catholic!?!?!?!

cath·o·lic (kăth'ə-lĭk, kăth'lĭk) pronunciation
adj.

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).

That's an odd definition of "catholic"... :eek:

Well the word confused me for a second.. until I realized he typed the word with a lowercase "c," hence it is not a proper noun. So, I looked it up.

and you know what. the cells are inhabited by little intelligent beings like us, but they aren't aware of the great "body of the cell".

I hope you mean that we are made up of lots of very small living "beings" that work together to keep themselves alive.

I hope you mean that we are made up of lots of very small living "beings" that work together to keep themselves alive.

yes, that's what i mean, and those little beings are also inhabited by even smaller intelligent selfconscious beings. for those beings, an atom is bigger than a thousand galaxies for us. when you look at the stars, you look at your infinite being.

Well I do not know about selfconscious... but then again the definition of consciousness is just as debatable as the definition of "life." It all depends on whether you are a materialist or not... determinist or not... open-minded or not... introverted or not.... ect....

Im pretty amazed by the number of people who believe this question has an irrefutable defininite answer. It really doesnt, its as subjective as asking if kurt cobain was cool or not. Its entirely an opinion and nothing more. I suppose you could argue in terms of widely regarded definitions of how most people would interpret this abstract thing called life, but even then youre just confirming a cultural/social bias towards the concept and not much else.

Well I do not know about selfconscious... but then again the definition of consciousness is just as debatable as the definition of "life." It all depends on whether you are a materialist or not... determinist or not... open-minded or not... introverted or not.... ect....

things like stars and cells aren't selfconscious really, not at all as much as humans anyway, but in those cells and stars, beyond atoms there are "little" galaxies which are inhabited by Humans who are as selfconscious as the humans here. human is a being who thinks consciously.

I suppose you could argue in terms of widely regarded definitions of how most people would interpret this abstract thing called life,

life isn't "abstract". this is life. this. everything.

and stars are a part of life, so they're alive.

Regardless of being based in Carbon, Silicon, or whatever, the simple fact is that, life requires water; water does not exist on or in the sun, what with the high heat. Thusly, a star, such as the sun, cannot be alive, due to the abscence of water.

Regardless of being based in Carbon, Silicon, or whatever, the simple fact is that, life requires water; water does not exist on or in the sun, what with the high heat. Thusly, a star, such as the sun, cannot be alive, due to the abscence of water.

So is the Terminator not alive? How about the boy from A.I.?

Do you have a definition of life?

things like stars and cells aren't selfconscious really, not at all as much as humans anyway, but in those cells and stars, beyond atoms there are "little" galaxies which are inhabited by Humans who are as selfconscious as the humans here. human is a being who thinks consciously.

Isn't consciousness just the collaboration of cells (just like the digestion process)?

Remember... you cannot include self-awareness in the definition of life, as we all should agree that rabbits are alive and so are fish.

Im pretty amazed by the number of people who believe this question has an irrefutable defininite answer. It really doesnt, its as subjective as asking if kurt cobain was cool or not. Its entirely an opinion and nothing more. I suppose you could argue in terms of widely regarded definitions of how most people would interpret this abstract thing called life, but even then youre just confirming a cultural/social bias towards the concept and not much else.

Finally someone who looks at this issue from my point of view, as well.

Isn't consciousness just the collaboration of cells (just like the digestion process)?

i don't think the cells couldn't behave like they do if they didn't have some kind of awareness. natural laws are the result of consciousness/life. i think that even matter has some kind of awareness. that's why magnets can attract and repel things.

i don't think the cells couldn't behave like they do if they didn't have some kind of awareness. natural laws are the result of consciousness/life.

I suppose awareness could be defined to be the abilty to react to outside influeneces.

i think that even matter has some kind of awareness. that's why magnets can attract and repel things.

Magnets do not react to iron. Whether or not iron is nearby, the magnet field will still be there.

Regardless of being based in Carbon, Silicon, or whatever, the simple fact is that, life requires water; water does not exist on or in the sun, what with the high heat. Thusly, a star, such as the sun, cannot be alive, due to the abscence of water.
OMG! Life DOES NOT require water!!!!!!
There are plenty of bacteria that never see water!!!!!

Arrrrghh!!!!!! :bugeye:

Well it can be said that water gave birth to life on Earth.

I really wish this topic would die already.

Well it can be said that water gave birth to life on Earth.

Yes, but first the heat of the sun dilated atomic motions and the earth gave birth to water. And before that, the fifth element, the divine fire, space, gave birth to everything.

Yes, but first the heat of the sun dilated atomic motions and the earth gave birth to water. And before that, the fifth element, the divine fire, space, gave birth to everything.

Nothingness + deity = universe

Something about that does not seem right.

OMG! Life DOES NOT require water!!!!!!
There are plenty of bacteria that never see water!!!!!

Arrrrghh!!!!!! :bugeye:
Is there any lifeform on earth that is not dependent on water as a part of it's structure?

P.S. Arrrrghhhhh!!!!!! :bugeye:

Is there any lifeform on earth that is not dependent on water as a part of it's structure?
To be honest with you, I overlloked the fact that bacteria are made with water eventhough they don't need it to survive... :D

But I think that limitation is completely unecessary. Life is energy. And energy is everywhere. Therefore, life could be wherever, ya know? Just because the forms that we know use water, doesn't mean others may not. Life based on silicone (or whatever that substance) doesn't use water, does it?

Btw, there IS water in the sun... :eek:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/news/sunwater.html

Btw, there IS water in the sun... :eek:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/news/sunwater.html
So? Already knew that.

So? Already knew that.

Hapsburg said there was no water on the sun.

However, even with water on the sun, it could not support life (I mean life in the common everyday meaning) because the sun is too chaotic.

But I think that limitation is completely unecessary. Life is energy.

Huh? What kind of new age babble is this?

Life based on silicone (or whatever that substance) doesn't use water, does it?
Who knows, since we have no examples of "life" based on silicon, right?

Look, the reason people think that carbon may be the only element that will work for life is that it can form very long, complex, and stable structures over a wide temperature range. Water is just a medium that allows carbon based molecules to move around, an its liquid phase overlaps nicely with the stability range for carbon based structures. There are no other candidate combinations that exhibit nearly the flexibility of carbon/water.

Huh? What kind of new age babble is this?
No new age babble here. Do you want to dispute that life is energy?

Who knows, since we have no examples of "life" based on silicon, right?
Well, it is just another system. It most likely use ammonia due to its temperature.

Look, the reason people think that carbon may be the only element that will work for life is that it can form very long, complex, and stable structures over a wide temperature range. Water is just a medium that allows carbon based molecules to move around, an its liquid phase overlaps nicely with the stability range for carbon based structures. There are no other candidate combinations that exhibit nearly the flexibility of carbon/water.
Regardless, the thread is about the definition of life.

No new age babble here. Do you want to dispute that life is energy?
Absolutely.

Life may use energy, but it no more is energy than a rcok is. Energy is an attribute of something that can impart or do work on another object.

So yes, it is new age babble.

OK, before we go off and bitch about whether life is energy... what do you mean by "energy" truthseeker? E=mc²? Or do you mean something like chi or whatever you call it?

If TS means the former, then a rock is energy.

Maybe you mean "life is energy" as in "life is in constant movement." In that case, what movement? Where is the fine line? The smallest divisible part of a life form is in motion? What kind of motion? How would the infinitesimal movement within the sun differ from that of a human? Or algae? A rock?

A rock is not energy. It has the energy content of mc² that can be liberated under the appropriate circumstances (i.e. matter/antimatter annihilation).

Why, again, is the sun alive? And who gave you the definition of life TS?

A rock is not energy. It has the energy content of mc² that can be liberated under the appropriate circumstances (i.e. matter/antimatter annihilation).

Yea, that seems true enough. Wiki said the same thing. So is this the binding energy of the particles plus the kinetic energy of these particles?

Im pretty amazed by the number of people who believe this question has an irrefutable defininite answer. It really doesnt, its as subjective as asking if kurt cobain was cool or not. Its entirely an opinion and nothing more. I suppose you could argue in terms of widely regarded definitions of how most people would interpret this abstract thing called life, but even then youre just confirming a cultural/social bias towards the concept and not much else.

When you examine what ALL consider to be "alive," you see it is a collection of matter with the subjective property of organization of motion of parts within its "body."

I wish more people would think about what "life" really means. I still do not know why this debate has continued to exist.

All we really know about life is that it is some sort of organized motion of it's parts. However, this is true of all things that exist. All additions to this to define "life" is just subjective.

Yea, that seems true enough. Wiki said the same thing. So is this the binding energy of the particles plus the kinetic energy of these particles?
Nope. It's the energy liberated if the particle is itself completely converted to energy. An unbound neutron and anti-neutron that gently bump each other will yield mc² ergs/joules, pick your units.

I wish more people would think about what "life" really means. I still do not know why this debate has continued to exist.

All we really know about life is that it is some sort of organized motion of it's parts. However, this is true of all things that exist. All additions to this to define "life" is just subjective.
Hang on a second here.

There is clearly not a smooth continuum of non-living to living. All living things that we know of have the ability to replicate and they use information coded within their cells to direct the construction of themselves. I also don't know why this debate has continued to exist. Living things use coded information to build themselves. This information is subject to errors hence the property of life to evolve new forms.

No star has coded information directing its construction. No star has ever evolved a new form based on errors in (non existent) information. No star has ever evolved into a new form at all. They are simple forms demonstrating basic physics.

No rock has ever responded to anything but erosion. No new rock species have developed from other rocks under the guidance of internally coded information.

I agree Absane. This debate really is silly.

Absolutely.

Life may use energy, but it no more is energy than a rcok is. Energy is an attribute of something that can impart or do work on another object.

So yes, it is new age babble.
So we cannot do work on another object?

A rock is energy. It is made of matter and matter is energy.

A rock is energy. It is made of matter and matter is energy.

Did you not read that last few posts before you replied?

So we cannot do work on another object?
Do you have any scientific literacy at all?

Did you not read that last few posts before you replied?
What I stated is a well known fact. You know "E=mc^2"? :rolleyes:

Do you have any scientific literacy at all?
You said we cannot do work on another object!

What I stated is a well known fact. You know "E=mc^2"? :rolleyes:

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc2

And I quote:

This formula proposes that when a body has a mass (measured at rest), it has a certain (very large) amount of energy associated with this mass. This is opposed to the Newtonian mechanics, in which a massive body at rest has no kinetic energy, and may or may not have other (relatively small) amounts of internal stored energy (such as chemical energy or thermal energy), in addition to any potential energy it may have from its position in a field of force. That is why a body's rest mass, in Einstein's theory, is often called the rest energy of the body. The E of the formula can be seen as the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the mass of the body.

You said we cannot do work on another object!
We can DO work on another body. We are NOT work itself. I mean energy and work in the physics sense.

What I stated is a well known fact. You know "E=mc^2"? :rolleyes:
This means that an amount of mass (m) is equivalent in energy content to c² times that mass.

Look up the difference between equivalent to and equal to.

BTW, stars are not alive. :p

We can DO work on another body. We are NOT work itself. I mean energy and work in the physics sense.
Interesting! So where does the distinction come from!? :eek: :cool: ;)

This means that an amount of mass (m) is equivalent in energy content to c² times that mass.

Look up the difference between equivalent to and equal to.

BTW, stars are not alive. :p
The point is that energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is just a form of energy.

The point is that energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is just a form of energy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

Thank you for proving me right.

Thank you for proving me right.

No, the point is that we do not really know for sure what E really means, but we have a pretty good idea.

Let's look at this:

momentum = mass * velocity

Given that the velocity is constant, is a hunk of matter, having mass, really just a big ball of momentum?

My example is just pointing out that what an equation says does not tell us what it is made of.

No, the point is that we do not really know for sure what E really means, but we have a pretty good idea.
Once again, my point proven.

Let's look at this:

momentum = mass * velocity

Given that the velocity is constant, is a hunk of matter, having mass, really just a big ball of momentum?
A form of it, yes.

My example is just pointing out that what an equation says does not tell us what it is made of.
I question whether you make sense here... what do you mean with "what it is made of"?

Once again, my point proven.

No.


A form of it, yes.

A form, in the sense you are using it, means you can change one thing into another. You cannot change momentum into mass or mass into momentum.


I question whether you make sense here... what do you mean with "what it is made of"?

At least in your sentence design, you are arguing that mass is made of energy.,,, as you did say: A rock is energy. It is made of matter and matter is energy. You claim this just because we have the mass-energy equivalence E = mc<sup>2</sup)

TruthSeeker,

You don't seem to be making much progress, hmm?

TruthSeeker,

You don't seem to be making much progress, hmm?

I am arguing just to attack the logical structure of his or anyone's viewpoint. Feel free to comment on what I have to say, too.

I agree with what you are saying.

I agree with what you are saying.

Perhaps, but I do not really know what I am arguing. What am I arguing? I am just saying whatever is opposite or different from his claims and then back them up.

:rolleyes: :cool:

Perhaps, but I do not really know what I am arguing. What am I arguing? I am just saying whatever is opposite or different from his claims and then back them up.

:rolleyes: :cool:
Oh. I thought you were arguing that TS was a shallow thinking, mush minded, helium sucking, delusionist.

My mistake.

Oh. I thought you were arguing that TS was a shallow thinking, mush minded, helium sucking, delusionist.

I think I am arguing to get him to see more sides than one... it seems he is stuck in a box and all he can see is limited by the box. I wish I had some more red pills :cool:

My mistake.

Maybe.. maybe not. Help me find out.

I'll try. Gotta go suck some helium now. Nighty night.

I think I am arguing to get him to see more sides than one... it seems he is stuck in a box and all he can see is limited by the box.
I'm not the one in the box- that's for sure... The one's that are in the box are the ones who are stuck in the conventional view and cannot think outside that narrow perspective. :eek: :bugeye:

If that is the case, why are we having this discussion?

Because nobody here is able to think outside the box? Well, aside from me... :eek:

I'm simply pulling your arguments apart. Why not reply to my last critique?

Einstein said exactly what I'm saying. You disagree. The proof is right there. I mean... what else can I say, really? :eek:

Stars don't evolve like living organisms do on Earth. Richard Dawkins said evolution is likely to operate wherever 'life' is in the universe and the evidence seems to bear that out on Earth. In my view the fact stars don't evolve biologically indicates strongly against the argument they are 'alive.'

Again- define life.

I'm not the one in the box- that's for sure... The one's that are in the box are the ones who are stuck in the conventional view and cannot think outside that narrow perspective. :eek: :bugeye:

if you werent in a box, you wouldnt be speaking any languages, nor would you have a name for what a star is, wouldnt have an opinion at all.

to say that you are "outside the box" means that you have NO thought.
dont be stupid.

Again- define life.
the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Because nobody here is able to think outside the box? Well, aside from me... :eek:

c7 is able to. i defined life 4 times already.

1. something that can express itself in somehow (self consciousness)
2. something that strives for its survival/existence.
3. motion (what else could start motion but consciousness)
4. we call this life, so everything is alive.

c7 is able to. i defined life 4 times already.

I never have, because defining it only starts a debate that will never end simply because no one will be happy with a definition. I am not a literalist, however.

I have said this: But I think what we consider to be "alive" (as in, plants, roaches, humans, unicorns) is a subset of a general description of motion and order.


And whatever this "subset" is, that is life.

We would all be better off agreeing on what is alive or not alive, but trying to find a single word that describes them all will result in failure.,

The Devil.

Again- define life.
Most of us already have and you just refuse to look at them. Here, I'll give you a short repeat.

Life is matter that relies on coded information to replicate, organize, grow, and evolve.

Stars are not alive.http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/282.gif

Most of us already have and you just refuse to look at them. Here, I'll give you a short repeat.

Life is matter that relies on coded information to replicate, organize, grow, and evolve.

Stars are not alive.http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/282.gif

I think TS is a literalist when it helps him with his argument, but then a non-literalist in the other cases.

However, superluminal, I can take your definition and tweak it to say a star is alive. However, the point of my attempt to help classify life at least tells us it is matter with specific properties that are comomn among all matter.

However, superluminal, I can take your definition and tweak it to say a star is alive.

Give it a whirl.

Take my definition and show that:

- stars replicate
- they use coded information to do this or any of the other attributes mentioned.

Remember, just because a thing shares one or two attributes with "life" does not make it alive.

if you werent in a box, you wouldnt be speaking any languages, nor would you have a name for what a star is, wouldnt have an opinion at all.

to say that you are "outside the box" means that you have NO thought.
dont be stupid.
Do you know the expression "think outside the box"? Well... that's what I'm talking about.

I never have, because defining it only starts a debate that will never end simply because no one will be happy with a definition.
If you cannot define life, you cannot claim a star is not alive.

However, superluminal, I can take your definition and tweak it to say a star is alive. However, the point of my attempt to help classify life at least tells us it is matter with specific properties that are comomn among all matter.
Thank you.

If you cannot define life, you cannot claim a star is not alive.
I've defined life. A star is not alive.

If stars are not alive, how do they die?

Thank you.
For what? Did you think life was not made of matter? That it didn't share lots of things in common with all matter?

Look at my definition and tell me a star is alive. You can't.

If stars are not alive, how do they die?
We say that hope dies. Civilizations die. Cars die. It's a metaphor and an anthropomorphation of a thing. Humans are fond of anthropomorphizing.

A star "dies" when it runs out of fuel and the thermonuclear reactions shut down.

Its the same old semantical lesson that can be found in almost every philosophical debate: words are never absolute in their meaning.
Can we all just accept that and move on? :p

Its the same old semantical lesson that can be found in almost every philosophical debate: words are never absolute in their meaning.
Can we all just accept that and move on? :p
I wish...

Remember, just because a thing shares one or two attributes with "life" does not make it alive.

That's part of my point! If I can show something does all things TS says is life, and someone claims that it is not alive, then the definition either needs to be tweaked or dumped. I am for dumping the whole definition and forgeting about it.

That's part of my point! If I can show something does all things TS says is life, and someone claims that it is not alive, then the definition either needs to be tweaked or dumped. I am for dumping the whole definition and forgeting about it.
What about my definition? The coded information and all that?

If you cannot define life, you cannot claim a star is not alive.

What the hell does that have to do with the snipit you quoted?

What about my definition? The coded information and all that?

I don't know. As far as I can remember, all I really said was that given enough time I could BS a definition, much like I used to do for every paper I would have to type in school (night before, no research... lol like all those philosophy papers I wrote, no research... all from my head.. get a good grade).

However, what I think this universe stems from is a small finite number of "axioms" that build all that we see. So, saying a human is alive, a rock is alive, or the fact that peanut butter is brown is all related and not that different. I wouldn't know how to explain it :o

Its the same old semantical lesson that can be found in almost every philosophical debate: words are never absolute in their meaning.
Can we all just accept that and move on? :p

Yay! Another person on my side!

I
However, what I think this universe stems from is a small finite number of "axioms" that build all that we see. So, saying a human is alive, a rock is alive, or the fact that peanut butter is brown is all related and not that different. I wouldn't know how to explain it :o
I don't disagree! Everything is related in some way. But this discussion seems more about semantics to TS than anything else. You can wordplay all you want. But the fact is that there is a clear understanding of what life is and what is not. If we find a rock on another planet, and this rock grows and evolves and replicates and develops according to some form of coded information in its structure that, in fact, actively generates the structure, then we better find another name for it. Because "rock" is already taken. This thing is alive. If a thing develops only by passively obeying simple physical law, it's not alive. Stars, crystals, rocks, air. Not alive. "LIFE" is just a classification of things that have properties that, in total, clearly distinguish it from "NON_LIFE".

Right???.

I don't disagree! Everything is related in some way. But this discussion seems more about semantics to TS than anything else. You can wordplay all you want. But the fact is that there is a clear understanding of what life is and what is not. If we find a rock on another planet, and this rock grows and evolves and replicates and develops according to some form of coded information in its structure that, in fact, actively generates the structure, then we better find another name for it. Because "rock" is already taken. This thing is alive. If a thing develops only by passively obeying simple physical law, it's not alive. Stars, crystals, rocks, air. Not alive. "LIFE" is just a classification of things that have properties that, in total, clearly distinguish it from "NON_LIFE".

Right???.

I think you are correct. I mean, we all "know" (notice the quotes!!!) what is "alive" and what is not. Well, maybe in general. We know what plant cells look like, and as far as I know all plants have this structure. We know what animal cells look like. I can be introduced to an animal or plant I have never seen in my life and make the judgement as to whether it is "alive" or not, and 999 out of 1000 times be "correct."

And in my normal existance, I would disagree that a star is "alive." However, when I can see where TS is coming from. However, it is all semantics. When you call someone insane or sane, you are talking semantics. But there is not a "universal rule" that defines insane or sane.

However, when I can see where TS is coming from. However, it is all semantics. When you call someone insane or sane, you are talking semantics. But there is not a "universal rule" that defines insane or sane.
That's fine. Aren't all definitions subject to this contrast phenomenon? In a world of nutjobs, you're the insane one. And in a world of living and non-living things, you're alive, and a star is not. Here's what I would say.

Suppose we find a race of sentient robots. They are quite friendly, they reproduce by following detailed instructions, coded within themselves, to construct wee robots, they "evolve" due to the fact that their complexity is such that small errors in construction make some new designs better or worse than others (a bit more torque on the lift rotator joint, applied by a slightly different synthetic myo-actuator fiber makes a stronger fellow). Are they alive? I'd come up with a new word to distinguish them from biological life, but yes, I'd say they were. Maybe we're "blifeforms" and they're "mlifeforms"? That sucks. Need to work on it.

Suppose we find a race of sentient robots. They are quite friendly, they reproduce by following detailed instructions, coded within themselves, to construct wee robots, they "evolve" due to the fact that their complexity is such that small errors in construction make some new designs better or worse than others (a bit more torque on the lift rotator joint, applied by a slightly different synthetic myo-actuator fiber makes a stronger fellow). Are they alive? I'd come up with a new word to distinguish them from biological life, but yes, I'd say they were. Maybe we're "blifeforms" and they're "mlifeforms"? That sucks. Need to work on it.

There would be biolife and life. Something can be alive, but doesn't have to be biolife. Biolife is a type if life.

How's that?

There would be biolife and life. Something can be alive, but doesn't have to be biolife. Biolife is a type if life.

How's that?
Simple and to the point.

Anyways... you got my point...

Anyways... you got my point...

Did it take you this long to realize that some of us get your point?

This thread should have ended a long time ago.