Life

"Just sounded like you were saying that which has individuality is living." No, I was stating that every living thing has individuality from each other and, therefore, is special. Individuality doesn't separate the terms of living and nonliving but are applied to the two significantly and differently. You keep saying that "The concept of life" is pointless when we all conceive differently of what life is to each one of us. There is no Single objective concept of life. There is yours, which is invalid; a misconception. "You try to put a swift end to my case by providing a definition of life, however things are not so easy." Actually, if you're looking for any objective facts to support or refute an argument between the differences of Life and the environment, it's pretty easy. It's pretty clear how things that are alive differ from things that aren't. I recall you stating earlier, "I'm saying that life itself, those things that we call "alive" have nothing that inherently distinguish them from the "non-living" environment." This statement is ridiculous and I suspect you of trolling. " By that, I mean that we aren't really helped by dividing everything into "living" and "non-living", and I think this boundary is artificial." Actually, you are when living things provide entirely different means of help than non-living things when it comes to human needs. If you're looking for companionship from a rock, for example, you're going to get drastically different results than that of a living thing; therefore, it is helpful to divide that which is living and nonliving. You argument amazes me. "By these three points, we could consider a DNA-enzyme complex alive just by itself. I won't go into specifics, but there are quite a few enzymes that assist in the replication of DNA. As a result, this system would reproduce (DNA would be replicated), metabolism obviously occurs, and adaptation occurs as enzymes can "correct" errors in the copying of the DNA. If you'd like a source for all of this, I can provide one. My point is, by such a definition, the molecular machinery alone that is used to replicate DNA could be considered alive, which seems absurd." I'm not sure why it would seem absurd to you. Anyways, your opinion on its absurdity is beside the point. There are significant distinguishments between that which is living and nonliving regardless. Whether it be to discover new forms of life on earth or elsewhere, which is helpful to discern the living from nonliving, to the degree and way of fulfillment derived from living versus nonliving; there are still major differences from that which is alive and that which is not. You could familiarize living and nonliving things given specific attributes, and be correct, but the word life is defined as it is, for a reason; and it is helpful. "Let's look at another example, mules. They can adapt, they can most definitely metabolize, but they can't reproduce. So, are they not alive?" Read again. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. It's still being 'manifested' by means of reproduction. There are many living organisms that can't reproduce. Besides that misinterpretation of the definition of life of why a mule isn't considered to be alive, please look at this thoroughly to know how wrong you are. http://www.merriam-webster.com... The problem is solved. There are objective definitions provided for Life and environment or nonliving, which is helpful in not only distinguishing between living and nonliving, which, by the way, makes for a pretty dumb argument, but also provides a foundation for scientific understanding or discoveries. When you try to prove yourself correct by providing your own unique version of "the concept of life", you are actually unknowingly providing an example supporting of how we living organisms, humans, are not only special, but also special in a much more different and distinguishing way than that of a rock or any nonliving organism. Another textbook style definition. What about internal factors, inside the organism? Inside a multi-cellular organism's cells? Does the concentration of ions in the cytoplasm of a cell not affect and influence its function? Yes, it does. What's the point here? I'm not seeing it, given the arguments stated. "Not artificial? Then as mentioned, please do provide a universal, valid definition for life. It is artificial." No, it's not. Your above misinterpretation of the definition of life is is clearly recognized by "That which reproduces" rather than "that which is manifested by reproduction". "Tell me, what happens when something dies? When something transitions from "living" to "non-living", what changes? " It dies. It's dead. It has transitioned into the nonliving form of that which was living, man. This is ridiculous. "Also, I hope this is the last time I'll have to say it, that I never claimed anything about the purpose of life, never claimed it was pointless." In reference to the above quote, you did when you stated this: " My opponent will be arguing that there is something special about life that makes it inherently different from the environment around it. I'll probably go as far as arguing that the concept of "life" is flawed and pointless."" Your own concept of life differs from everyone else's and when you have presumed to deem your own as pointless, you are incorrect on the basis of it not being knowable or established as fact. "The first sentence carries no real weight in our debate, your job is to prove that sentence." I'm really unsure of how to prove it to You specifically when it's pretty rudimentary and obvious. Look above for reference, I suppose, but the fact that you're unable to find it self-explanatory surprises me. "And no, I don't think the concept is special, it's just a word we apply to things that we see as having reached a certain level of complexity." The concept is different, i reiterate, and subjective; therefore, it is special. The objective definition of the word itself has a logical relation to which the word applies to. I'm dumbfounded. "I'm trying to destroy the binary view of "everything is living or non-living"." How can you when everything is, in fact, either living or nonliving? "At this point, it seems like you have to provide a universal, valid definition of life that fits our intuitive understanding of it. Once you start trying to think of one and fail, you will realize that the boundary between living and non-living is not so definite." Sorry, but you have clearly misinterpreted my definition of life in argument #2. You're the one who has yet to place a valid argument against it. Your mule and dna examples, do not disprove the obvious difference between the two words "living" and "nonliving" nor do they provide any intelligible explanation of why it is useful to distinguish both words as one; nor have, can, you prove that every living thing, due to its features, which are obviously special because of each living things experiences that all are different in some way, are not special. Even if an organism were to experience the same thing in the same way as another organism, due to the location and time that varies, it is still unique. "Often, we assume that a familiar situation will be but a repeat performance of a similar situation we've experienced before. But, in the strictest sense, there are no repeat performances. Every situation is unique, and we must be alert to its uniqueness."