[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as you list some necessary conditions to be called 'life' you run into situations that test a few of them.

'reproduce' is a good example. If we ran into an entity with an abundance of every other quality but lacked the ability to reproduce would it be a non-life form?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. But your response is somewhat sophomoric in my opinion. Definitions are required, especially in science and math, to give a basis for not only comparison and discussion, but as the framework for testing hypotheses, building theories, or acquiring data for example. Some definitions are more concrete than others say for an electron, the valve of the square of 4, an atom, H2O, to what is a fossil or a glacier or an island to what is life. Difficulties in defining natural phenomena or abstract concepts are neither prohibitive nor impossible in the scientific methodology developed by the human mind and should not be considered permanent roadblocks to knowledge. What’s the definition of a definition? Does 2+2 = 4? If you wish to wallow in ignorance as the defining nature of all phenomena and human constructs then we might as well stop all debate and discussion. In fact considering what most people state on this forum that may not be a bad idea.

Obviously I posted the life definition in response to Borodogs thread about the possible creation of “artificial life” by some scientists in the near future. If this does happen then a definition of what actually took place is of prime importance and sheds light on the implications and far reaching ramifications of said event.

-Zeno