Talk:Life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for Life: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Priority 1 (top) | ||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
| Up through July 2006 * |
[edit] DISAMBIGUATIONS and MERGERS
I'm a student of linguistics. When I search for INANIMATE, it brings me here. Why? By INANIMATE in the linguistic sense, I mean the INANIMATE category in nouns, for example (e.g. ANIMATE MASCULINE vs. INANIMATE MASCULINE). When I search for ANIMATE, it takes me to a a totally different page devoted to some Japanese house or whatever. Why???
[edit] Seperation of Religious Belief with Life Itself
Coming across this page, I've noticed a couple of edits on the main page as well as the discussions here, about life being created by "God". It should be said that the separation of the science of the topic of life and the topics on the "Life" Wikipedia talk page should be respected by people of all religions. In no way does this page attempt to depict a certain religion - it tries to be as neuteral as possible. Let's please keep it that way!
[edit] Metaphysical Definition
"Life itself is a set of processes that are carried out by an organism causing it to possess a minimum set of characteristics.
In metaphysics an organism possesses life during the period between an organism's acquisition of a spirit, upon Fertilisation, until it's spirit's terminal evacuation, upon death."
--Considering that the word "spirit" itself and other spirit-like words like psyche and pneuma come linguistically from words for "breath" and don't have any linguistic ties to fertilization, it may be argued that associating "spirit" or breath with fertilization may be a modern connection. Spirit was biblically and (especially by the Greeks) associated with birth or the first breath. The Greeks at one time believed the vessels of the body were filled with air and that air/breath was the animating principle of people. After all, dead people don't breath.
Perhaps there should be a history of the definitions of life segment to discuss different views of life at different points in time and by different philosophical groups.
open_mind 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree the word spirit implies 'breath', thus a plant or an embryo can not be considered to have a spirit since it doesn't have a breathing apparatus. But if you look further, the implication of 'breath' in Greek is to 'breath life into'. It is a mainly an animal phenomenon that young first breathe upon birth (or hatching), though it would be difficult to argue that the organism isn't alive nor has a spirit before it 'spirates' its first air. Of course, fish never breathe air though they still have an animal spirit and animal soul. The meaning of spirit is something that 'breathes life into' an organism, or an organism 'has life is breathed into' it. You may find this also a circular definition. The spirit is the metaphysical 'breath' itself. I believe the metaphysical meaning of spirit is the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism, therefore the usage of 'spirit' in conjunction with a metaphysical meaning of life is not necessarily invalid.
KirkWolff 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't question the validity of fertilization as a modern view of when life begins. Maybe I was not clear about that. However, I do find it interesting that today with our intimate scientific knowledge of reproductive processes, we describe the spirit as something abstract (the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism) whereas ancient civilizations may have viewed early life (and when it begins) much more literally (that air is the thing that animates all things).
Ancient civilizations were likely unaware of reproductive processes like fertilization and would likely view birth as the beginning of life as my admittedly amature linguistic analysis appears to support.
Maybe differing historical metaphysical beliefs about life should have their own page or a section could exist here for it.
open_mind 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newton serious??
The 2060 article says Isaac Newton thought life on earth was going to end in 2060. Do today's scientists still agree?? Please explain. Georgia guy 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Newton's 2060 theory wasn't a scientific one it was based entirely on his religious beliefs and how he interpreted those myths. On those grounds scientific method has never agreed with him and it is unlikely that they ever will.
I studied science for four years at reputable institutions, and I am greviously saddened to report that I find little compelling evidence to support Mr. Newton's bold hypothesis. -- Chris 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Bland quotation & the In philosophy section
The quotation attributed to David Bland added in the In philosophy section :
“At some point in their life, every person asks themselves, "What is the meaning of life?" Some people say that many years from know, everything that we have created will not affect future generations, eventually everything will be gone or forgotten. The money and material possessions we have accumulated will have absolutely no impact on the world. If this is true, then the only positive thing that can come from our existence is our enjoying our time here. (To enjoy our lives doesn’t mean to waste it).” David Bland
This doesn't seem to be adding important information to the article. I myself have not heard of David Bland and neither has Wikipedia. I don't think this section should be a collection of proverbs and quotations from different individuals, IMHO.
This section needs some work, but I'm not sure that I'm the person to do it. My background is more in the science of life than the philosophy of life. Any philosophical takers on this one?
Benwildeboer 11:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone with the surname of Bland merits mention on Wikipedia. Especially if his strongest adherent here can't be bothered to write out a fully-correct quotation (2nd sentence: know vs. now). -- Chris 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's very negative. David Bland could be the X-factor addition to the Spice Girls on their farewell tour of Essex.--80.6.163.58 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Death
Shouldn't the ability to die be part of the definition of life? I know it's a bit circular, since it is impossible to define death without life, but the same could be said of pretty much all distinctions in Western thought. . . . 24.14.246.12 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's more accurate to say that cessation of life is (part of) the definition of death, not vice versa. horsedreamer 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It'd be good to see a section of quotes about life...
Here's a starter:
"If it were not for the difficult character of life, it would not be life." -- Some depressed dude
Unfortuntely Wiki has a policy of only citing reputable, published sources, not reputable, unpublished persons, so this can't be added. Alas. -- Chris 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't hate! He may very well be published by Depressed Dudes Publishing LTD. 68.215.226.236
Does that quote necessarily indicate that the dude in question is depressed? -Peter
What defines a reputable source? Not scientific fact, not anything else, we all have to make a decision of faith because no one will ever know. Whether you base your theories on carbon dating (created by man) or whatever, you can never truly know. As a human you do not possess the ability to understand where life originated from or where it will end.
[edit] Disambig
If you type in LIFE (block capitals), you'll be directed to the article about the Americam magazine, with no reference to this article.-80.6.163.58 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mass of Life
I'm removing the following text from the article: Currently the entire Earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass (life), which lives within various environments within the biosphere. It was listed as "citation needed," and I think it's wrong to give such an arbitrary statistic without any reference. This is especially true because, for instance, Isaac Asimov (in The Power of Progression) estimated the total mass of life on earth at 20 TRILLION tons. This is off from the article's estimate by a factor of nearly 300! Kier07 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Removed line -Other Info- The cheif of the African tribe, Huhakaiuya meaning monkey god, thought monkey's and primates to be sexually attractive.--Liquidvelvet 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should be semi-protected. Emanla Eraton 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"Life is but a commodity"
[edit] Spontaneos Generation
Shouldn't there something on spontaneous generation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.237.29.31 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC). -That theory was proven to be false with a famous Louis Pasteur expariment.71.65.34.160 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what is a virus if not alive? what is the nature of life?
The article says a virus is not alive because it is not cellular and does not have a particular metabolism. This is not a definition of life which seems good to me. There could be other life which has neither of these qualities. Extra-terrestial life, e.g. In any event a better reason why a virus is not alive is needed. Paul Beardsell 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
