When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.....
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.
If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.
The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reaction.
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.
As we said, living organisms are a summation of chemical reactions.What happens now when they die? There is a disorder in a system of reactions (for example brain necrosis, which means that in a large number of neural cells there is a stop in the reactions that happen there) that lead in a chain reaction way to a disorder in other reactions and then in others and so on.The final result is that there is a necrosis in the whole body, in a chain reaction way.

1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivate in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.




entropy of life

2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
3)The relativity of entropy
What happens with the ntropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next to other to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively with the whole system of the birds.

the illusion of life
1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.

2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.

4)lets come now to the position to answer if the spores that some microorganisms forms(e.g. cryptobiosis,anhydrobiosis etc) are living forms.If their metabolism is not zero, if it exists but it cant be detected because it is so weak, then they dont differ in anything from the other organisms.If their metabolism is absolute zero, then the answer gets more complicated.The fact is that it doesnt matter what it is, because the question is useless.Life as we see it is simply the result of the chemical reactions on earth.As we said ,we are part of the system and we dont realize it, but if we were alien forms of life for example, and we were watching the earth from outer space, then we would see only a very complicated network of reactions that are becoming more and more because of the energy of light.This system would have different structural forms, colours, etc.So, what happens with the spores is that because they face very unfriendly conditions ,the certain chemical reactions stop happening or they are lowering their rate.According to our definition, they are not life, but what is life?Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.5)Another implication of the theory is that because the sum of the chemical reactions is a chain, it means that the cause of a disease maybe come from the organ that has the symptoms, but maybe not.An initial problem causes its irregularity, but depends of the vulnerability of each organ to see in which organ the symptom will be seen, because all the reactions communicate with each other, and when a problem exists its like a volcano and we dont know where will it explode.For example a psychic disorder can cause a problem from the liver for example..
continue from previous
Of course, when we are talking about chains of chemical reactions, we do not mean it in the simplistic way, that they are in a chain, and everything is happening in an order, where the formed substance goes to the next position to react with the next substrate etc. Things in nature are much more random, and it is difficult sometimes for us to detect which is the next step.One of the major difficulties are some passive phenomena that happen, such as plasma flow, passive diffusion through membranes because of difference in concentration, or electrical gradients, excretion throught ducts, etc.The latter are phenomena that happen passively ,due to the laws of nature and are not defining life, the way the chemical reactions do. To be more symbolical, they play the role that scientists play in a chemical lab:they transfer the substances from one tube to another, arrarge the conditions, etc.But the chemical reactions are the big difference.
Of course , if these movements that we are talking about were not there, we would not be the way we are.We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.It is like we are in a moving ship, and so we realize things differentl from someone who is standing in the port.Most of all we dont have a good sence of our own movement.If we were not in the living system, we would not find any reasoning for all the creatures on earth.Even if we were tables for example, we would think that the most perfect creatures are the tables.All depends on what is the observer.

Welcome to BAUT, MINAS. I see you've posted almost exactly the same thoughts on at least two other forums since August 2007. If you have not already done so, please take the time to read our rules for posting on this board.

Your theory seems quite against-the-mainstream. Do you have any support for your ideas?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Minas, after reading through your post I've found out all you've done is come up with a very eluberant way of saying, "Wow! If my Aunt had she'd be my Uncle!" and then have seemed to stepped away amazed at this conclusion.

Move along folks! Nothing to see here! Emo kid needs a friend is all. Kai, Boo, help him out!

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

What's life?

I don't know. When I get one, I'll let you know.

Fred

PS.

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Life? Where?

Was there ever a precise moment when a self-replicating chemical ceased to be a merely inert self-replicating chemical and became "life". Probably not. I think it will remain ever unclear what are the precise boundaries of life.

If we ever encounter lifejim, (as in "It's lifejim, but not as we know it"), we will probably have to revise our views. But at the moment I assess the probability that our species ever will do that as materially less than 1. And the probability that it happens in my lifetime as rather close to zero.

Ivan, I doubt it. I am no expert. What I've read indicates that various chemical structures had outside help for both the chemistry as well as the energy part for millions, if not billions of years.

In fact, they still do.

A bit more complicated these days, though...

Is that your Final Answer, then?

__________________
*

life is that short period between conception and death...

..and it's also a board game made by Milton Bradley, i think.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Reflecting on ye olde saw: "Man is the only animal that knows it will die"...wouldn't carnivorous animals be quite aware of death?

__________________
*

Most don't pass the mirror test, indicating that they're not very aware of themselves as individuals. More advanced concepts like death didn't even appear among us humans until well into the last 2.5 million years of our history.

So I would say they're probably aware of the passing of a companion, but not the concept of death, per se'.

Not so much "the passing of a companion" (hadn't considered that---good point), as what they killed then ate for breakfast, lunch or dinner.

__________________
*

To the carnivore, it's as simple as "Tree, grass, food, rock, companion, not-food, bush, not-food, rock, tree, rock, dirt, rock, food..."

Or still visible signs of those concepts anyway. (How would we know?)

MINAS, good effort. See if you can find a copy of 'Mind and Nature' by Gregory Bateson, it's a good read.

Life is that which modifies its environment in a systematic way to continue to exist.

Or, its a board game in which the answer is ....42.

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily available to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

"Quaerendo inventis"

Five feet of heaven in a ponytail.

Oops, sorry, that's 'What is Love?'

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

I have a simpler version. On a continuum, a self replicating crystal is not life and a replicating cell clearly is. Somewhere in between those two is the dividing line. It isn't any more important where one draws the line than whether Pluto is a planet or not. (Though I may need a new analogy after hearing Neil deGrasse Tyson talk about Pluto this Mon in Seattle. )

You may need to draw that line for specific purposes such as when we get the abiogenesis theory better described. So a virus is alive if you don't mind the fact it is a parasite. You may need to consider a single replicating RNA strand alive or not, depending on how it fits the abiogenesis theory.

Hi Mike.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Life is an arbitrary concept. The atoms and subatomic particles making up the atoms in any definition of 'life' are no different from those in non-life. Matter and energy have universal properties that are oblivious to any biology. What we call 'life' is simply the way atoms must act in all circumstances when the variables are the same.

Years ago I recall Carl Sagan speaking about life beyond Earth and he prefaced it by saying that man's obsession with classifying things as living or not living doesn't have any scientific basis... it's just subjective human perception. He went on to say that we'll find what we call life 'out there' one day because the 'stuff' of the Universe is the same everywhere. There is nothing special in the carbon based molecules that make up our brains.

Or as Twain said

"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Shania Twain said that? Both good looking and witty.

Pain.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

The Romans obviously knew of love of the nature we are talking about, (romantic infatuation) but didn't consider it a desirable condition to be in. Made the person vulnerable.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

For anyone interested, this article has the best discussion of human blushing that I have so far found.

The Biology of Embarrassment


My goodness, I can edit for days after a post!. Had I seen that earlier I would have just corrected this one, but I'll leave it since it's been commented on.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Is there a difference?

Beskepital, that linked article was atrocious. That was eighth grade work at best.

I don't even know where to begin. Unless I'm having a "moment" it doesn't say anything.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

for instance this quote would have to be defended.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Wow, I can edit for hours after a post. Deleted, see correction below:

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Well darn, my bad. I had a number of articles open on blushing and linked to the wrong one. (And is an unintended pun too!)

Theories of blushing

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

tl;dr

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.