What is Life?

[Ferdi]

Consult the science of Biology.
What else is on your mind here?

I do not know what you are driving at. Consulting biology is an open end.
Lets go back to my basic observations.
My question is very simply: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?
Prior to birth a foetus is alive with heart beating. It is so as an 'alive' part of the mother. After a successful birth the baby has its own 'life', its heart then driven by its own life. The baby is then a new individual added to our world.

Like I said consult biology. What sort of answer are you looking for? This is a question about consciousness, not life. Life exists regardless of you being conscious of it. Your gut has more individual lives in it than the total number of stars in the galaxy. And each one of your cells is a dependant though autonomous living thing, which does not die at the same time you do. You can take the cells from a dead man and culture them in a dish. You could also clone a dead man, and give a life a new consciousness.
So your question seems to be about being conscious of life, not of 'being alive/having life'.

Are you confusing the issue by adding cells in gut, and stars in galaxy but let's follow your side-tracking. Cells are alive, as I have said originally: a corpse is dead, has lost its life, but it cells remain alive for a while.
Cells can be grown in the lab, even on your kitchen towel, They are chemistry. They do not have their own life. They are not independent individuals. More over, this thread is about human beings which we may agree are the highest order of intelligent individuals on this planet, to the best of our human intellect.
Back to the simple question: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?

[Dalek Prime]

Life is the nonessential creation of something which never needed to be, and could totally do without, never missing it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I do not know what you are driving at. Consulting biology is an open end.
Lets go back to my basic observations.
My question is very simply: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?
Prior to birth a foetus is alive with heart beating. It is so as an 'alive' part of the mother. After a successful birth the baby has its own 'life', its heart then driven by its own life. The baby is then a new individual added to our world.

Like I said consult biology. What sort of answer are you looking for? This is a question about consciousness, not life. Life exists regardless of you being conscious of it. Your gut has more individual lives in it than the total number of stars in the galaxy. And each one of your cells is a dependant though autonomous living thing, which does not die at the same time you do. You can take the cells from a dead man and culture them in a dish. You could also clone a dead man, and give a life a new consciousness.
So your question seems to be about being conscious of life, not of 'being alive/having life'.

Are you confusing the issue by adding cells in gut, and stars in galaxy but let's follow your side-tracking. Cells are alive, as I have said originally: a corpse is dead, has lost its life, but it cells remain alive for a while.
Cells can be grown in the lab, even on your kitchen towel, They are chemistry. They do not have their own life. They are not independent individuals. More over, this thread is about human beings which we may agree are the highest order of intelligent individuals on this planet, to the best of our human intellect.
Back to the simple question: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?

No you are dead wrong. That is why I brought up the issue. A corpse is as alive as it ever was, and the process of decay is a living process. FIngernails and hair continue to grow, and the cells with your DNA are gradually taken over by other organisms; flys lay their eggs and eventually the corpse dissipates, and brings much new life.
Once again, your question is actually about consciousness, and NOT about life at all.

You are confused and have contradicted yourself. You need to think this through more clearly. I have highlighted in red where this contradiction is.

And once again, your question is meaningless.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Life is the nonessential creation of something which never needed to be, and could totally do without, never missing it.

scratched record.

[surreptitious57]

A corpse is alive as it ever was and the process of decay
is a living process. FIngernails and hair continue to grow

No they do not continue to grow after death. Instead what happens is that the skin
surrounding them begins to recede which creates the illusion that they are growing

[Hobbes' Choice]

A corpse is alive as it ever was and the process of decay
is a living process. FIngernails and hair continue to grow

No they do not continue to grow after death. Instead what happens is that the skin
surrounding them begins to recede which creates the illusion that they are growing

The point is not relevant. skin cells live on for days, as they require less oxygen from the blood being on the periphery.

However; A corpse is teeming with life.

[Dalek Prime]

Life is the nonessential creation of something which never needed to be, and could totally do without, never missing it.

scratched record.

I blame the needle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Life is the nonessential creation of something which never needed to be, and could totally do without, never missing it.

scratched record.

I blame the needle.

You're giving me the needle!!!

[Ferdi]

You are confused and have contradicted yourself. You need to think this through more clearly. I have highlighted in red where this contradiction is.

And once again, your question is meaningless.

Meaningless is a matter of opinion to which you are entitled.
I'll give you a new question that has a dead simple answer: is a corpse dead, life-less?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are confused and have contradicted yourself. You need to think this through more clearly. I have highlighted in red where this contradiction is.

And once again, your question is meaningless.

Meaningless is a matter of opinion to which you are entitled.
I'll give you a new question that has a dead simple answer: is a corpse dead, life-less?

You are becoming a waste of time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A corpse is alive as it ever was and the process of decay
is a living process. FIngernails and hair continue to grow

No they do not continue to grow after death. Instead what happens is that the skin
surrounding them begins to recede which creates the illusion that they are growing

Yes, I saw that somewhere. A lot of people think the hair and nails keep growing. It's one of those myths that never seem to get 'busted'. Same as the one that says we only use 10 per cent of our brain--another myth.

[Dalek Prime]

scratched record.

I blame the needle.

You're giving me the needle!!!

Nice comeback.

[nodak]

What if life is a fundamental force of the universe like gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces?

[Hobbes' Choice]

What if life is a fundamental force of the universe like gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces?

Tell that to a virus baby.

[Ferdi]

You are becoming a waste of time.

Spitting the dummy shows anger; is your free will. History is rife with wars caused by failures of humans to discuss, listen, negotiate, live and let live, and by fanatic interpretations of religious beliefs.

I’ll state again my answers to what the difference is between having LIFE and being ALIVE.
Life is what drives the body and mind of an individual. One can sense when the individual is still present in a dying person, and gone a moment later when the body without its LIFE still looks like the individual but in fact has become a useless corpse. The corpse consists of ALIVE cells that have lost their coordinating driving force and are left to follow their chemical decomposition phase, falling apart into the earthly elements from which they were built. While fresh the corpse can provide spare parts for organ transplanting. The organ’s cells can be made to re-function again by re-connection to the driving force of LIFE in a foreign body.
The corpse, without its individual, is usually subjected to funeral ceremonies, speeches to the coffin and burial rituals. Grave stones, statues, mausoleums, pyramids and their contents are also solid evidence of humans respecting the INDIVIDUAL. This is evidence of a natural sensing that there is more to LIFE than meets the eye. Man has found, and science has increasingly confirmed, that everything in the universe appears to have a purpose. It is logical that an individual’s earthly sojourn, although astronomically of insignificant duration, will also serve a purpose. We can only guess what that purpose is. Life is not of our dimensions, we cannot analyse it, but we can definitely sense its absence on death and its presence after birth.
Unlike the point of death, pinpointing the start of one’s life, the start of a new individual is not readily sensed. This has led to the abortion controversies with drastic actions when some fanatic minds are driven by religious and/or popular beliefs .It is the subject of a separate thread.

Re your reply to “nodak”, do you honestly believe that a living virus has LIFE, is an individual like an intelligent human? You still can’t see that there is a vital difference between ‘being alive’ and ‘having life’. Life IS ! Indeed as nodak suggested I consider life to be part of the universe; it exists like gravity and infinity.