But we (life) are an integral part of the planetary system and we (life) depend on that system; I'm not sure there's a qualitive difference between the two.

The ecosystem that is me, may as well be a planet to the life that depends on me; even a virus, that is trying to kill me, needs me to live, or at least provide a suitable enviroment.

There is a sense in which the bee and the flower are a single organism - but it's generally more precise to refer to it as an ecosystem, at least in scientific discourse.

I personally consider the Earth alive. You could even consider humans analogous to neurons with the potential to become reproductive organs (i.e. terraform Mars). The universe? - i guess, but we're getting into the territory of such broad definitions as to be meaningless.

11 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

You could even consider humans analogous to neurons with the potential to become reproductive organs (i.e. terraform Mars). The universe? - i guess, but we're getting into the territory of such broad definitions as to be meaningless.

Indeed, but we could go with humans analogous to a virus, I never did understand how a virus is not alive.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but we could go with humans analogous to a virus, I never did understand how a virus is not alive.

Why a virus? 

The problem is with the definition of life: any definition, not just the popular one. For any rigid definition of a complex system there are always going to be grey areas. It's like trying to draw the Mandelbrot set using a simpler curve, you'll have to cut off parts of the set. Unless the definition is so broad to include everything, but then why even bother trying to define it.

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Why a virus? 

Intent, or rather an unintentional consequence. 

By any definition, something that is alive, must

Feed
Expel waste
Reproduce

None of those criteria are met by the closed system that is planet Earth.

The metaphysical is not scientific.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

By any definition, something that is alive, must

Feed
Expel waste
Reproduce

None of those criteria are met by the closed system that is planet Earth.

The metaphysical is not scientific.

Come on MigL, are you sure you're stoned...

Feed, where would we be without the sun?

Expel waste, how much shit, in orbit, does it take?

Reproduce, Well that is a struggle for a Planet...

Well, two out of three ain't bad... 🙃

Just read Professor Challenger.

Planets aren't alive.  Gee, how profound!  I'll bet my coffee cup isn't alive either!

So Dim...
You listen to Meatloaf when you're stoned ?
( this is becoming a running joke  )

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Planets aren't alive.  Gee, how profound!  I'll bet my coffee cup isn't alive either!

I don't see anyting positive about this, I thought profundity was a little less glib.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

So Dim...
You listen to Meatloaf when you're stoned ?
( this is becoming a running joke  )

I don't remember saying that...

I'm just thinking... What else don't you know???

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Just read Professor Challenger.

from the Wiki entry on Prof Challenger

"Challenger hoped through this experiment to prove that the Earth was a living organism that sustained its vitality from the ether of outer space"

There is no aether  .

 

"Two out of three ain't bad"

From the album Bat Out of Hell, released 1977, by the artist Meatloaf.

There is lots of things I don't know, Dim, but useless trivia isn't one of them.

Edited February 20, 20205 yr by MigL

1 hour ago, MigL said:

By any definition, something that is alive, must
Expel waste

Demodex folliculorum isn't really alive then? Or by "waste" we include exhaled air? 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is lots of things I don't know, Dim, but useless trivia isn't one of them.

Now you're stoned enough...

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is no aether  .

 

Yeah they're both ghosts in the machine.

nor is there a real Professor Challenger.

Edited February 20, 20205 yr by studiot

It doesn't matter if the planet is alive or not, that's not the point of the thread, much like my virus analogy, it's not about intent; but we can all turn vegan, plants ARE alive and they can grow back.

Defining the Planet as 'not alive' doesn't mean it's dead, well not yet...

Edited February 21, 20205 yr by dimreepr

I think we all know what you mean and the point you're trying to convey.

However, it becomes that much harder to correct new members using non-standard terminology when one of our more senior/respected members modifies accepted scientific terminology to bolster a point.

( next thing you know, some new age fanatic will come along and say the Earth has feelings... )

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I think we all know what you mean and the point you're trying to convey.

However, it becomes that much harder to correct new members using non-standard terminology when one of our more senior/respected members modifies accepted scientific terminology to bolster a point.

Fair point, maybe I should've placed this thread in philosophy.

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

( next thing you know, some new age fanatic will come along and say the Earth has feelings... )

That would be terrible, the vegans might get the wrong end of the stick and think a cabbage can suffer...

 

On 2/20/2020 at 8:37 AM, MigL said:

By any definition, something that is alive, must

Feed
Expel waste
Reproduce

Actually the typical definitions include growth (biomass generation), metabolism, reaction to stimuli (or broader inclusion of adaptation). There are also more specific ones, but feeding usually refers to heterotrophic metabolism, which excludes autotrophs.

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Actually the typical definitions include growth (biomass generation), metabolism, reaction to stimuli (or broader inclusion of adaptation). There are also more specific ones, but feeding usually refers to heterotrophic metabolism, which excludes autotrophs.

I am looking for a definition that tells me a volcano is definitely not alive since volcanoes seem to me to satisfy both MigL's list plus your growth one as well as the ability to exist in a dormant phase where none of these happen.

 

 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I am looking for a definition that tells me a volcano is definitely not alive since volcanoes seem to me to satisfy both MigL's list plus your growth one as well as the ability to exist in a dormant phase where none of these happen.

A virus fulfills this, but then so does some bacteria.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

A virus fulfills this, but then so does some bacteria.

So do I after a good dinner and some whiskys.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

So do I after a good dinner and some whiskys.

Tricky aint it?

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tricky aint it?

Yes.

 

But there is also a point to my DA observation.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

But there is also a point to my DA observation.

DA observation?