Define life

Just wondering about /sci/'s definition of life. None of that made of cells bullcrap. Bonus points for answers which adequately handle fire, viruses, corporations, and artificial intelligence.

Best answer will recieve a box containing a simulation of a universe whose denizens are just on the verge of discovering that their world is a simulation.

Neither fire nor corporations are alive. Not in anything other than a metaphorical sense, anyway. One is a simple chemical reaction, the other is an organizational abstraction of living individuals.

TBH the cells "bullcrap" is the best definition.

Fire is a chemical reaction, viruses are simply biological machines which replicate (and do other, more interesting stuff), corporations are an extension of a living organism (so they do respond to stimuli but they rely on their module (people) to respond - similar to ant colonies or termite mounds). Artifical Intelligence doesn't exist in a proper sense of it's definition because nobody has been able to program self-awareness.

Just stick to the cells definition because nothing else fits.

So we would seem to lack a field of self-propagating-stuff-ology.

if it fucks, it's alive
i don't care about asexual reproduction or sexbots
this is my definition and i stick with it

Life is self replicating matter

>>6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyzVtTiax80
Does this count?

>>7
I wouldn't call that self-replicating. Some dude just put another piece there and it connects itself to that. It doesn't actually grow a new piece.

>>2
Humans live and are systems made up of individual cells, bacteria, viruses, chemicals, etc.  How is this different from a corporation made up of humans, processes, equipment, memes, etc?

>>6
And just what is matter? 

Life is awareness and all things that exist are aware.  When atoms interact, it is because of awareness that they have an effect on each other.  The atom is information.  All information lives, propagates and perpetuates itself through a variety of mediums.

>>Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not[1][2] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."

>>Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the consensus is to attempt to describe it. Therefore, life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[12][13]

>>   1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
>>   2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
>>   3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
>>   4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
>>   5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
>>   7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two parent organisms.

^^^

if you do all of those things, you are alive. if you used to but do not anymore, you are dead (which is also incidentally non-living). if the collection of matter that is you never did all of those things simultaneously, you are exclusively non-living.

Corporations are not made up of humans. A corporation is just  a piece of paper that we all (through the government) decide to call a corporation.

>>9

Life doesn't need awareness, there are plenty of single celled organisms that count as life but only react to stimuli without full awareness.  Life also uses energy from the sun, moon, tides, chemicals, elements and other organisms.  Atoms happen to have a really cool way of transferring energy, so eventually atoms bond and organize in groups that allow for better energy transfer than a pile of rocks.

>>1
>>6
Self-replicating matter which is also capable of evolving. This covers pretty much all life. Fire is not capable of evolving, corporations are abstract organizational ideas not matter, and artificial intelligence is not matter, it is a phenomenon that exists due to a specific organization of matter, similar to how software is not a tangible object, yet can exist within computer hardware (read Jerry Fodor's and other contemporary philosophy of mind authorities' works for more information).

Conway's Game of Life. The end.

Life is anything incapable of determining what life is.

a game, also see Escher, Godel, Bach

>>13
You're definition is tempting, but you have left completely unclear what matter that self-replicates and evolves is. It self replicates, so it creates copies of itself. It evolves, so these copies are all different from the original. What then, is a copy? If you break a rock in two, has it self-replicated? They are both rocks, so in a way, yes, and they are both different from the original, so there has been evolution. A definition that allows rocks life under certain interpretations is to my mind unsatisfying.

I realize this may seem like quibbling, but one can easily make the argument the fire does in fact evolve, changing its shape, eating habits, reproductive rate, size, and other factors as its fuel changes, i.e. in response to its environment. I think your definition merely replaces the question of "what is life?" with the question "what is evolution?"

>>17
You're defininition

Life is meaningless. Just try and perform some famous BOOMPS.  on the way.

>>19
Welcome back.  I haven't seen you in months.

only purpose: copy dns (with 98% of useless information) as often as possibly.

>>21

So scripts and bots count as life?

>>10 & >>2  More importantly the average /b/tard does not count as alive, they do not reproduce, or at least not a large portion of them, the world is safe.

Being "alive" is just a social construct. We decide something is alive, thus it is alive. We decide something is dead, then it is dead. You can't measure life anymore than you can measure the color red.

>>24
The difference between heavy and light is also "just a social construct." There is some greater principle at work--actual mass in the case of heavy and light, self-propagating-stuff-ology in the case of living and nonliving.

The difference between the living and the nonliving is a continuum. Fire is alive, but less so than a virus, which is less so than a paramecium, which is less so than your mom, and so on. So long as it self-replicates and evolves, then it is life. The more narrow the "self" that is replicated, however, the less alive it is. Fire has an extremely narrow self, and is not very alive at all. Corporations are alive, and with their fairly broad selfness, I'd rank them just under paramecia. The only hard part here is figuring out what "self" and "evolve" mean.
See also: >>13 & >>17

What's the deal with viruses?  They seem so unlike our definition of life aside from reproduction.

>>26
In what sense are they more unlike your definition of life than bacteria? Oh, wait, you're just talking out your ass.

life is motion, without motion is stillness, stillness is death.
life is change, without change is stagnation, stagnation is death.
life is strife, without strife is calm, calm is death.
life is love, without love is hate, hate is death.
-hate is ignorance, negligence, abandonment, and forgetfulness. (ultimate forms of segregation) = death.
life is the sum of pain, without pain is comfort, the ultimate comfort is death.
life is uncertainty, without uncertainty is certainty, certainty is death.
life is truth, without truth is illusion, illusion distracts you from life.
Can you handle life? Some can. Others are more comfortable handling the grip of a pistol as it is pressed at their forehead aimed at their cerebrum squeezing the trigger and feeling the click just before the hammer falls against the firing pin igniting the powder exploding the led bullet in a bright fury down the barrel penetrating skin, skull, and eventually brain tissue blasting its way through to finally rest deep within and cause all life functions of the human body to cease. This too is death.
Death is a part of life. Can you handle the emotion of fear when you think of your own death? Can you be comfortable with uncertainty?
How might it make you feel to know that there are those of us out there that have; how would it make you feel to know that we are doing it right now as you are reading this message?
Is it fear? Is it pain? Is it despair?
Don't worry, it'll all be over VERY soon.
On my 33rd birthday, December 21, 2012.
I look forward to disappointing you.

>>13
OP here. Congratulations! This thread appears to be winding down (see >>28) and your definition is prettiest. You will be recieving some cardboard in the mail shortly. Please assemble into a box, place yourself inside, and close up.

Let sit for a couple of minutes, and shortly you will have your prize.

>>29
Haha, I forgot about this thread. Yeah, I guess the poetry copypasta is a good sign.
By the way, I got my definition from from my Astrobiology professor. Even he admits there are some issues with it, (b/c this definition would claim that the androids in Terminator and other such constructs are alive, provided they can evolve and adapt to their environment) but it seems to cover everything science considers alive now, so we go with it.

>>17
I assumed OP had some schooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Start there, then follow the sources for more info.

>>28
I forgot one.
Life is simple, without simplicity is complication, complication is death.
(This means; don't over-complicate things, simplify things instead.)
"Divide and conquer" -Sun Tzu; The Art of War: "Make light the large tasks; make important the small tasks." -Yamamoto Tsunetomo; The Hagakure
prove me wrong...anyone?

>>29
about post >>13 , i agree with you 100% that was a "prettiest" definition, but i disagree with it on the basis that galaxies, in that case, would also be considered alive.
also,

>corporations are abstract organizational ideas not matter.
really? is that ALL they are? even if that is the case, does life have to be composed of matter?

Really, i am a bit concerned that any answer to OP's question will come down to semantics. I want to ask OP how he is judging right from wrong as far as the responses go.

>>31
why prove you wrong when you have not proven yourself correct yet, at least to us?

>>32
Galaxies don't evolve. Make sure you know what evolution means.
I'll give the old story distinguishing organizational ideas against a grouping of matter.
There is a foreigner (it's kind of an old story, so go with it) who visits Britain or America (or some industrialized nation), and decides to go and visit one of these universities he's heard so much about. Yet, when he gets there he only sees a group of buildings. He asks a faculty member which building is the university, to which the faculty member responds that they all are, as well as the people who work there and attend there. This confuses the foreigner, who wonders how such a large and dynamic group of things can be the university. The worker then explains why, and describes several other institutions, such as governments, clubs, teams, and so on. (If you can't tell, I got lazy, just look up organizations in wikipedia or something).

I must admit, you blew my mind when you asked whether or not life must be composed of matter, although, I can't really think of how energy could replicate or evolve, or even exist as a functioning system.

>>32
Still thinking in right and wrong; good and evil, huh? That ideology never got me anywhere in life but single, still a virgin, and no girlfriends to speak of. How's it working out for you? After I abandoned that ideology I found I was judging women less often, listening to them instead of correcting them every other word and actually found myself being pursued and persuaded by many women to have sex with them...interesting eh? Now I have three girlfriends, a blond, a brunette, and a Japanese girl who's married with three kids. Try accomplishing that with your right/wrong attitude.
Besides, it's not a matter of right/wrong;good/evil, it is simply this, "Perceive life AS IS, make love to life without orgasming (lust for it), objectively seek HOW things work and use WHAT works to accomplish your goals in life."
Deviation means isolation and segregation; ie, you become a hermit.
Sorry for the downer, but hey, It's because I love you that I put you through so much pain. I wouldn't want you to be all comfortable saying everyone else is wrong and you are right. That's the illusion you were indoctrinated with to distract you from THIS MOMENT. Now that you are aware, one of two things will happen. 1) You'll deny, brag, boast, and/or jeer my statements hence ignoring everything that I've said and continuing in your pursuit of illogical moral logic that continues to segregate you from humanity. -or- 2) You'll listen and begin investigating for yourselves all the things I've stated. This is a rare moment in time, are you using it productively towards your own benefit or are you wasting time and accomplishing nothing while believing all the while that you are....? The choice is yours to make. I've made mine and I'm very pleased with the findings and the results. I look forward to many arguments and am always uncertain what will come next and I am absolutely ecstatic about it.

>>32
Oh, and one more thing, "What you know and believe right now is what you are comfortable with and gets you more of what you currently have. If you want something different, you will have to step outside of yourself and do something different."
How's my logic now?
Are you still doing the same old things expecting different results? Hasn't worked for me in 29 years, how about yourselves?

Here's another source;
The Mahabharata has four goals for life and they are these;
1. Dharma or right action/duty
2. Artha or purpose
3. Kama or pleasure/desire
4. Moksha or liberation

It is said that just by reading or hearing the Mahabharata that the reader will be cleansed of all sin and will come closer to enlightenment.

winning an arguement on the internet is like running in the special olympics.....even if U win, nobody cares!!!

>>37
The only way that I CAN win is by loosing.
*bows* Ah thank you, ah thank you.

>>34

>>34
link

blah blah blah  blah

write a journal!!

at number 34

Also at number 34:

3 gfs is not something you should be proud about.

>>33
Please elaborate. I remain unconvinced that organizational ideas and groupings of matter are functionally different from one another. Naturally this makes evolution a rather tricky word for me, so if you could clarify this that would be awesome.

Also if you could explain what a grouping of matter is because when I group things I tend to do it by organizational principles. I suspect that you are using the the organizational principle of "physical proximity," but that would sort of blur the distinction between these two groups wouldn't it.

>>39
>>40
discover them yourself just like I did and do. It's that skill that is most potent. :)

>>41
Already am

>>42
yeah, I kinda figured you meant me.

>>43
I'm not proud, I'm exercising my right of Free-Will. And, I don't care if you hate me or don't like me or would like to kill me. I would genuinely welcome a challenge; they're so rare nowadays with all the shallow inconsiderate cowards laying about in basements in front of computers and on couches watching day-time tv. I rather like the idea of cowards dying in shame...like the scapegoat. :P

>>45
...speaking of scapegoats, what was Jesus to the Jews again? Something about freeing all of us of sin?

ability of replicate own genetic information no?

a system with mechanisms designed to encourage that systems continued existence.

suffering

a systematic of observation and false sense of control. I assume everything has consciousness and they thing they control what they do. Like a tree thinks it wants to grow and give fruits. Or a stone thinks to stay there. This illusion is life. Everything that exists are controlled by the same source of -probably- random consciousness/mind force field but since we have no feedback to confirm, we assume multiple identities. And assign totally meaningless definitions to states.
Both my explanation and grammar are terrible here sorry. You can only understand such a situation if you thought about this yourself.

>>50
o.O' Okay, now that's a very interesting interpretation, anon, you gets an A+ in creative thinking. All that's left now is to deceive yourself until that becomes truth and then you will believe it and reality will prove you correct...that is reality's purpose after all; affirmation.

This won't make any sense to anyone, but my personal belief is that all things present are alive, but through choices changes take place and transform the complex structures into mutations of succession. I understand that this isn't proof, it is just my humble opinion and only worth a lot to myself at the present time. Perhaps that too may change some day. :)

>>52
Holy crap! Now that's genius! Did you come up with that all by yourself? At least you're not stating this as fact or you might be seen as a lune. Okay folks, here's some logical guidelines;
When you state a conclusion (assumption) without any premise this is called an assertion. When a conclusion and an assertion are present this is known as an argument. If your premise is evidently false and/or your conclusion illogical this is known as non-sequitor (it does not follow logically).
If a is equal to b, and c is equal to b, then logically c is equal to a.
The movement from individual experiences or facts to the general truth is called Induction.
The movement from the general truth to individual experiences or facts is called Deduction.
All I'm seeing on here is Deduction leading to irrational confusion and creative assumptives.
What we are attempting to do logically is tie a logical conclusion to a reasonable and simple premise or vice-versa. When you fail to do this you are only fooling yourselves; so if that's what you want, do continue in your modus operandi, and we will simply look upon your efforts as works of art to be seen as aesthetic and logically inconsequential. Well, we already do this, but, well, now you know. :P

wow, what a load.