Is life just a conception?

As a scientist I have moments like now [dead boring waiting for the experiment to end] when I think about basic things...

I've learned a long time ago, life can be defined by seven basic properties. I forgot some of them that's why I've used Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org...]

So, to say something is alive it must meet the following criteria:

1 - Homeostasis
2 - Organization
3 - Metabolism
4 - Growth
5 - Adaptation
6 - Response to stimuli
7 - Reproduction

According to many scientists (if not all but me), if all these properties coexist we "have" to consider something alive.

Because I've been doing research on different fields I now start to challenge this conception.

Is life only present is we have all these properties or is this the only life form we consider to be possible to exist?

For instance, I don't think that for something to be alive it has to be able to reproduce.

Also, it's obvious we are just touching the edge of being able to understand the basic phenomena. Just because you cannot measure or see it it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Why can't a robot be considered to be alive.

If you say it's because they have short term batteries so do we.

If you think they cannot reproduce, are you sure they won't be if you give them time to evolve?

They respond to stimuli, they are somehow homeostatic entities, well organized and can adapt to different situations.

If they can grow? Maybe not like us. A metabolism... maybe the electric networks.

Not to mention other aspects such as creating life...

What do you think?

Maybe I should go home and rest... to much work in the lab

The definition of life is something that has been debated for centuries. There has yet to be a definite definition... If you look at matter itself at the subatomic level, it is very much "alive." So, does it have life? Certainly not by human standards, but the question still remains. Does it have life?

I remember back many years reading something that said common clay in rocky stream beds have many of the qualities we associate with life. I remember seeing stratum of clay in mountain creek beds on Montana and were fascinated by them.

Clay is composed of very fine grained silica materials. In a stream bed, these tiny grains accumulate in eddies and stick together, I suppose through a kind of enhanced surface tension. Once they gather enough material, they start to move through a rocky stream bed, attracting more fine grains, grinding rock down (eating it), and expelling material that it can't absorb (elimination). It doesn't have any kind of external covering or skin, but is remarkably waterproof. It doesn't just get washed away, and does a good job defining itself from the rest of the creek system. It doesn't think, but is more like a tree or some other kind of plant. Sustaining itself by absorbing "nutrients" and expelling "waste" within its own ecosystem. I think bits of it may even break off sometimes, and that would start new clay deposits in other areas of the creek.

So it's kind of alive. Sort of. In a kind of freaky, non-cellular way.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Nohup]

So, would you assume volcanic activity is a manifestation of "rock / stone" life?

Hmmm, it has been already postulated we wouldn't find any life on Mars [yeah right] because we don't consider silica as a possible organic element like carbon.

I think one shouldn't mix normal/regular events as life manifestation but again, who are we?

Novrod, again, it gets back to the question of what life is. I know what the general conception is. However, I can't say with any degree of certainty that a rock is any less alive than I am.. I can postulate that it's not, but I cannot know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Life IS just a conception.


The governments blinded us all from what it really is.

My first approach was really to ask if life was just an assumption.

I am now sure life as we know it is just a term to distinguish entities we believe to have the ability to interact with the surrounding world.

If the definition is really the reproducibility of the genome then it must be changed because it's wrong.

The genome is just a phone book, plain and simple programming code in order to build an object/machine.

Either we consider ourselves as simple programmable pieces of equipment [not only our brains] or we're just animals that again, are just simple living machines that do nothing but fighting for resources in order to be able to successfully reproduce and transmit its own lineage.