I would like to submit a new definition for "LIFE"...what do you think?

Question

Life should be defined as any grouping of atoms that sustains its structure by appropriating other forms of matter; energetic or otherwise.

This definition satifies all current accepted forms of life but also doesn't restrict life to having to have some basic elemental basis.

Just atoms, intelligent or not, maintaing their structure by utilizing the matter and energy around it...so rocks arent alive.

Stars are alive they are attempting to maintain their structure and can be thought of like fertilized chicken eggs. All the nutrients and foodstuff is in the shell to get the living zygote from a zygote to a chicken. The star has all the gases it needs to survive and maintain its state.

Fire isn't in itself alive because it doesnt have a atomic structure, its the free release of atoms and electrons, and is more a reaction than a proactive process.

So this definition is more of an atomic process than a molecular process. Thoughts?

ok I see that stars wouldnt be alive, but fire is also an process of entropy...

And what's wrong with rocks being alive? I mean I understand because of traditional thought that's silly...but moving from a human centered perspective of life and the universe and making a definition that is purely physics based.

If this definition was in fact validated, life no matter how alien to man, is life. Based not on "magic" molecules or components but based on is a process present? Does that make more sense?

Again I stress Darwin is a theory not a law, and having to reproduce isn't a characteristic of life..some creatures are born sterile.....

To advance the concept of life...the process observed should be self-maintenance...nothing more. It's so radical but it proves man still considers his perspective "the" perspective.

The current perception and accepted theories are to colored with human comfort and traditionist values.

Again I stress Darwin is a theory not a law, and having to reproduce isn't a characteristic of life..some creatures are born sterile.....

To advance the concept of life...the process observed should be self-maintenance...nothing more. It's so radical but it proves man still considers his perspective "the" perspective.

The current perception and accepted theories are to colored with human comfort and traditionist values.

Answer 1

Keep working on it. Your definition does indeed make fire a form of life. Fire has atomic structure; it is an incandescent gas. Your distinction between reactive and proactive conjures up an image of a "ghost in the machine", or soul, with some manner of intent to all things living (like the midiclorines of Star Wars). It is a very primative concept discarded since Darwin.

Modern concepts of life entail the capacity to reproduce and mutate so that evolution is possible. This is how trivial examples of reproduction like fire and crystallization have been excluded. The broadest definition relax the requirement for atomic structure as being incidental to biological life. Computer programs might one day be classified as life forms by those definitions.

Answer 2

In a way, stars are more "alive" than other forms of nonorganic matter for the definition you have described, but besides the general traits of life like "all living things are composed of cells", I see anything "Living" as being able to react and change to a stimulus.

For instance, the most primitive forms of life, archae and bacteria are in essence just combinations and arrangements of different types of molecules. However, they have feedback mechanisms that react to certain stimuli which other nonorganic entities like the sun do not contain. If a bacterium encounters hostile conditions, it will go into a dormant state that renders it indestructible to most things besides extreme heat, so it can "come back to life" at a later time. It has enzymes that react to specific chemical substrates in order to produce energy, and these may increase or decrease in activity depending on how much energy a bacterium needs. The sun may be a self-sustaining energy source due to nuclear fusion, but it does not have any way to speed up or slow down the chain reaction. It will simply keep going and going at a constant rate until it eventually collapses or burns out; there aren't any mechanisms in place to prevent it from doing so and preserve itself like a bacterium or other carbon-based life form.

If I would change your terms a bit, I would call the sun a "self-sustaining entity", but in consideration for what I have explained, I do not think it is "alive".

Answer 3

Well, stars wouldn't fit your definition, as they make no special attempt to maintain their structure, no matter what is in their immediate vicinity. They are a simple balancing act between gravity and fusion. Once their fuel is exhausted, they "die." A star is a pure entropy machine.

Also, using your definition, some rocks would be alive. Crystals like quartz, or even sugar, take material from their surroundings and build onto their own structures, in very organized ways.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

Answer 4

I agree that we need a new definition for life. Its not clear where we should draw the line. While I was doing graduate research at the University of Arkansas my mentor challenged me to name a basic characteristic of life that he couldn't show me in non-organic materials. Every time I came up with something he showed be that same behavior in something we don't consider to be alive.
At the time we were working with quantum dots (clusters of atoms in solid state materials that produce 3 dim electron confinement) which exhibit a variety of life-like properties. They multiply, self assemble into structures, and adapt to external stimuli.

Answer 5

Because the concept of submission in marriage per Christian doctrine is not quite the same as the general definition. It does not mean that her husband is going to secretly run her presidency, like Hillary Clinton or Eleanor Roosevelt did. Come on over into the deep end of the intellect pool - the water is fine.