[danielost]

would we recognize it as being alive.

what if a rock was alive would we see it as being alive.


what if water was alive would we see it as being alive.


what if empty space was alive would we see it as such.


what would we recognize as life? only that life that is carbon based? are we that closed minded that if there was another type of life not based on carbon that we wouldn't see it as being alive.


according to my last science class life should be based on silicon as well as carbon because they are in the same family of atoms.

what other atoms could life be based on. would we know it if we saw it.


and if there is life based on other atoms does this mean that there is no god or there is a god or does it matter.

[Dr Alien]

well a plant is technically a form of life, but is it like animals, can it feel pain, emotion etc.

i think if those listed above were alive, they will be more like plants.

[Mattshark]

Dr Alien, on 02 November 2009 - 07:28 PM, said:

well a plant is technically a form of life, but is it like animals, can it feel pain, emotion etc.

i think if those listed above were alive, they will be more like plants.

I think he means planet, not plant.

[storminateacup]

I'm confused.

I know it doesn't take a lot, but even so!

[Dr Alien]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 07:31 PM, said:

I think he means planet, not plant.

i know...
read it again...

[danielost]

_Libby, on 02 November 2009 - 01:35 PM, said:

I'm confused.

I know it doesn't take a lot, but even so!

don't feel bad your not alone.

[Wickian]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 06:52 PM, said:

would we recognize it as being alive.

what if a rock was alive would we see it as being alive.


what if water was alive would we see it as being alive.


what if empty space was alive would we see it as such.


what would we recognize as life? only that life that is carbon based? are we that closed minded that if there was another type of life not based on carbon that we wouldn't see it as being alive.


according to my last science class life should be based on silicon as well as carbon because they are in the same family of atoms.

what other atoms could life be based on. would we know it if we saw it.


and if there is life based on other atoms does this mean that there is no god or there is a god or does it matter.

I'm not sure what the technical definition of life it, but I think it's a single/cluster of cells/other(just because life on earth is cell-based doesn't mean other life will be) that actively searches for sources of energy to use to further it's own growth and to reproduce.

[RamblingRebel]

From what I understand a parasite can only live off something that is 'alive'. Usually having detremental effects on the host, but to the parasites own advantage.

Now if we take that statement, and apply it to the Human/Earth relationship, then to my eyes the Earth is living! Perhaps in a different way to what we would normaly class as 'biological life'.

If we look at the Earth as a whole, over an extremly long period of time, then one could possibly say that Earth acts somewhat similar to most forms of life. I.E. The earth 'renews it's skin' in a process that takes around 4 billion years or so. It could be said that with the expansions and rereating of the Icecaps over millions of years, then this too could be viewed by some as the heartbeat/breathing process of the Earth.

Also we have animals on this planet that live off it, then when they die they decompose and provide nutrition for the Earth to 'digest'. Similar to what happens in the Human gut we have bacteria living inside us that lives off the stuff we can't digest.

Although I don't think that you could scientifically class the Earth, or any other planet as a 'living being'. It shows triats (at least to my unscientific mind ) that could be seen as 'living'. I also think it could help to change peoples views in regards to the way we are 'killing' the planet, if we did see treat the Earth in the same way we would treat any other animal.

Cheers

Ste

[Wickian]

RamblingRebel, on 02 November 2009 - 08:19 PM, said:

From what I understand a parasite can only live off something that is 'alive'. Usually having detremental effects on the host, but to the parasites own advantage.

Now if we take that statement, and apply it to the Human/Earth relationship, then to my eyes the Earth is living! Perhaps in a different way to what we would normaly class as 'biological life'.

I disagree.

Unless the loss of minerals from mining and exhaust from industrial sources actually put the existence of the planet is jeopardy, then it cannot be considered victim of a parasite. The only thing humans have done is put into jeopardy the lives of other living things on the planet, but not the planet itself.

Quote

Also we have animals on this planet that live off it, then when they die they decompose and provide nutrition for the Earth to 'digest'. Similar to what happens in the Human gut we have bacteria living inside us that lives off the stuff we can't digest.

I disagree with this as well.

It isn't the planet that decomposing animals provide nourishment for, but plants and other animals. Personally, I think plants have had the largest influence on the atmosphere than any other living thing. If any human activities are causing changes to the existing biosphere, it's the recent mass reduction in forests.

[danielost]

so i guess the answer is no we would not recoginize a non-carbon life form as life.

[Paul Noise]

Stanislaw Lem's - SolarisRead this. It will open up so many more questions for you.

This post has been edited by Paul Noise: 04 November 2009 - 06:01 PM

[danielost]

i think we need to open our minds to the possibility before we start saying things like there is no god. maybe god is just a creature that lives for 100 years well we only live for 1.

[SQLserver]

A. Planets do plainly not meet any of the criteria for life.
B. Therefore, planets are not living things.
QED.

[danielost]

SQLserver, on 04 November 2009 - 02:51 PM, said:

A. Planets do plainly not meet any of the criteria for life.
B. Therefore, planets are not living things.
QED.

a planets do not meet any of the criteria for life as we know it. the only life we now is carbon based.

b therefore you cannot say that planets are not living things. you can say that they are not what we consider to be alive.


this thread is about expanding your mind. not telling everyone what they already know. open your mind to the possibilities.

This post has been edited by danielost: 05 November 2009 - 12:41 AM

[SQLserver]

Quote

a planets do not meet any of the criteria for life as we know it. the only life we now is carbon based.

b therefore you cannot say that planets are not living things. you can say that they are not what we consider to be alive.

Daniel: Please read the above again. Continue to read it until you realize what is so hopelessly wrong with your statement.

This post has been edited by SQLserver: 06 November 2009 - 09:24 PM