Aug 27 2012: We can realize a basic law in the working of the universe. It does not want to evolve into higher levels or want to express itself by it. It simply interacts within and possibly without. This interaction then creates the forms that we experience in our cosmos, these forms than carrying on the interaction. The reason for higher levels of forms is the basic law of the universe, which is: If it can be (exist) than let it be. Some of the forms of the universe that are fragile in nature (meaning without high maintenance they would not be, like living things) need to evolve other vise they can’t keep up with other forms that are do change. If the interaction between matter and form and the environment permits the existence of sad forms then these forms indeed will exist. But these forms are affecting their very own environment and trough this effect they are causing advantages and disadvantages for themselves and for others. If any form is capable of existing in this cycle, than it will. If not, than it will perish. As the situation is always changing because of the participants in it, for some forms the existence is only possible by evolving into „higher” forms. So there are no wants and needs of the universe, just a simple law. If any form or matter can exist, than it will. The very reason for why human beings are asking the question why? Is coming from our own perspective. If we would not have a why as a species (human), we would not exist. We do everything for a purpose. We eat because without it we would die. We mate, work, drink etc… because without all of our functions we would not exist. We seek purpose in everything because of it. And we tend to apply the same reasoning to everything there is. The very ability to even be able to ask the question who am I and what is my or the universe purpose is the proof of the basic law. We can ask this question, because we CAN. If we would not be able to ask we would not be homo sapience but would be something else.
If you take away the capability of reproduction from a cell, then you get a form which is alive for maybe a few weeks then it is no more and never will be because we took its livelihood away. So yes it was alive. But not live. When you say it is alive then it implies the fact that it was brought to life. But when you say live than it means that it is capable of existing. And this cell is not, because we took away its reproductive function. After ran its course it will die. If you take away the reproductive function by host, from the virus, it will be no more because the reproduction itself is the life of the virus. The mechanism of reproduction is came to be in the universe, so forms that are more fragile than a granite slab can keep existing but not by keeping one individual alive but rather being able to reproduce and pass down itself to another. We must argue this “what is life and living” question not by one individual from a herd but by clusters. If a form came to existence by the universe trials and errors and it is capable to sustain itself by interacting with its surrounding and reproduce itself to be able to keep the interaction going then it is a living form. When a form came to existence by the universe trials and errors and it is capable to sustain itself by interacting with its surrounding but no longer (as a whole species) or never was able to reproduce, it is alive but not an ongoing living form. And most likely we will never meet this form in an alive state because it will die very quickly. And it will because of its fragile nature.
To look at the prion. I would not consider it alive since it does not pass the info to the next one how to create another prion. Maybe in a few million years it will but not just yet.
Aug 26 2012: No since the mentioned sterile human, is alive because of his past, and not because of his future. The way of production of this human is the proof of its aliveness.
Aug 26 2012: Hi Andrew
We might consider it alive but that would be artificial life only. To answer the other part if the “host computer” does not reproduce I`m not sure but there is a type of moss which is living in rocks. This moss is alive although it would not be able to exist without that very rock. The rock would be the non-reproducing host.
For the mule. It is alive since it came to be. The cross mating is just as random as thee sterilization in a human being.
Aug 26 2012: I have never heard of prions before. Thank you for bringing it up. I looked it up immediately. What I found is that prions are bordering between nonliving and living just as viruses and scientist still debating if they are considered alive or not. Personally form the information I got in the last 20 minutes about prions I would consider a virus to be more closely to be alive then a prion. It seems to me that the prion does not have the information of how to reproduce although the virus does. It looks to me as if the prion is a “bad” type of protein which if interacts with another “good” protein the interaction causes the “good “ protein to turn into a prion. But this turn is not because of the splitting of information from the first prion to the other, but because of the molecular structure of the prion. When the prions structure “collides” with the “good” proteins structure it causes the “good “ protein to “fall” (unfold) apart into the very same structure as the prion itself. Although a virus does have the information of how to make another one of itself, but lacking the resources to make one.
I`m not a biologist and also fairly new to these matters so please forgive me if my logic makes no sense and definitely feel free to correct me.
Aug 26 2012: Are there any living species that does not reproduce? The human which is sterile in your example is only a random occurrence. But for the human to be it had to be produced first by another. So the human species is indeed reproductive and this reproduction sometimes has glitches with sterile end results.
Regarding the living computer software, yes it does reproduce itself and it may also have the capability to adapt, however it did not came to "life" by itself. It had to be engineered. So at best we can call it artificial life. I think all life forms came about without (as far as we know it) engineering. They came to be by the interaction between matter. Of course you can take a bag of computer code and throw it up in the air and calculate, what are the chances that they will fall into the perfect combination to create a software "naturally". And most likely there is a number probably in 1 in the billions or something like that. I’m sure that in the not so distant future there will be living things that are half engineered and half naturally produced, and as I wrote this I just realized that there are already. We might consider the genetically altered plants, algae and so on into this half and half category.
At the end I still like to stick with the definition that a living thing is a form which is capable to reproduce and sustain itself at least for long enough to be able to complete one reproductive cycle. And life is the interaction between non reproducing and reproducing forms.
Aug 24 2012: Life is interaction between matter which is able to sustain itself and reproduce to keep its interaction (its own existence) going. This definition is of course is regards to living things. On a larger scale Life is everything there is. And the definition for that would be: Life is the interaction between all forms and their environments. This very interaction then creates an interdependence for all participants.
TEDCred score: +0.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: What does the cosmos want?!?!?!?
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
If you take away the capability of reproduction from a cell, then you get a form which is alive for maybe a few weeks then it is no more and never will be because we took its livelihood away. So yes it was alive. But not live. When you say it is alive then it implies the fact that it was brought to life. But when you say live than it means that it is capable of existing. And this cell is not, because we took away its reproductive function. After ran its course it will die. If you take away the reproductive function by host, from the virus, it will be no more because the reproduction itself is the life of the virus. The mechanism of reproduction is came to be in the universe, so forms that are more fragile than a granite slab can keep existing but not by keeping one individual alive but rather being able to reproduce and pass down itself to another. We must argue this “what is life and living” question not by one individual from a herd but by clusters. If a form came to existence by the universe trials and errors and it is capable to sustain itself by interacting with its surrounding and reproduce itself to be able to keep the interaction going then it is a living form. When a form came to existence by the universe trials and errors and it is capable to sustain itself by interacting with its surrounding but no longer (as a whole species) or never was able to reproduce, it is alive but not an ongoing living form. And most likely we will never meet this form in an alive state because it will die very quickly. And it will because of its fragile nature.
To look at the prion. I would not consider it alive since it does not pass the info to the next one how to create another prion. Maybe in a few million years it will but not just yet.
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
We might consider it alive but that would be artificial life only. To answer the other part if the “host computer” does not reproduce I`m not sure but there is a type of moss which is living in rocks. This moss is alive although it would not be able to exist without that very rock. The rock would be the non-reproducing host.
For the mule. It is alive since it came to be. The cross mating is just as random as thee sterilization in a human being.
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
I`m not a biologist and also fairly new to these matters so please forgive me if my logic makes no sense and definitely feel free to correct me.
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
Regarding the living computer software, yes it does reproduce itself and it may also have the capability to adapt, however it did not came to "life" by itself. It had to be engineered. So at best we can call it artificial life. I think all life forms came about without (as far as we know it) engineering. They came to be by the interaction between matter. Of course you can take a bag of computer code and throw it up in the air and calculate, what are the chances that they will fall into the perfect combination to create a software "naturally". And most likely there is a number probably in 1 in the billions or something like that. I’m sure that in the not so distant future there will be living things that are half engineered and half naturally produced, and as I wrote this I just realized that there are already. We might consider the genetically altered plants, algae and so on into this half and half category.
At the end I still like to stick with the definition that a living thing is a form which is capable to reproduce and sustain itself at least for long enough to be able to complete one reproductive cycle. And life is the interaction between non reproducing and reproducing forms.
A comment on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
To simplify it even more: Life is participation.
peace,wisdom,prosperity for all...