posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:10 AM
Man, this is one strange thread.
Are we possibly confusing or conflating the scientific definition of 'life' with 'intelligent life' or with 'biological'?
Or, are we trying to redefine or dispute the scientific version of the definition of life?
Viruses are considered to be 'biological'. There is debate on whether they are living or non-living.
Prions are certainly a clear example of something that is biological and not something that's part of another organism (such as a cell nucleus, or
mitochondria), yet it is not considered 'alive'.
I think it's OK to be 'unsure'. After all we have some species that it's not clear if they're plant or animal or fungi (Protists are one, some
having animal, some having plant and some having more fungi-like characteristics; thus they're given their own class).
I think we could make a case for something being 'alive' rather than 'inert', but does that serve any purpose; perhaps, but I'm not clear
[edit on 27-5-2007 by Badge01]