Welcome back, Losingstreak.  Haven't seen you for a while.

I was going to mention something about this earlier, but I didn't for fear of derailing the whole thread.  Since you've opened the can of worms, and there really is no debate about when life begins, I'll run with it.

Humans don't form any permanent memories for a significant amount of time after birth, and by some definitions, they are not truly sentient until a couple of years old.  (By others, they are... it's a debatable point.)  It wouldn't be totally wrong to say that we aren't fully human until well after birth, if humanity is defined by sentience.  I don't agree with that, but someone could make the point and not look completely foolish.

By a broad definition of parasite, children are technically parasites.  By a more specific definition, fetuses are parasites.  We get into some trouble with the generalizations, though, as most parasites are fast-reproducing compared to their hosts, and typical definitions exclude by default members of one's own species.  It could be asked whether this distinction is scientific or polite.  I don't know the answer.

From Wiki:  (Since this isn't a serious discussion anyway)

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed. In general, parasites are much smaller than their hosts, show a high degree of specialization for their mode of life and reproduce more quickly and in greater numbers than their hosts. Classic examples of parasitism include the interactions between vertebrate hosts and such diverse animals as the tapeworms, flukes, Plasmodium species and fleas.

The harm and benefit in parasitic interactions concern the biological fitness of the organisms involved. Parasites reduce host fitness in many ways, ranging from general or specialized pathology (such as castration), impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behaviour. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for food, habitat and dispersal.

If reproduction is a requirement of life, then one has to consider all the humans that are incapable of reproduction.  This deficiency does not make them any less "alive" than those that can reproduce.

I think sperm/eggs are an exception to the "rule", in that their reproduction (or growth) is only possible by mechanisms of the host organism.  But they are indeed alive, from a scientific point of view.

Also, I think sperm DO have an objective - to reach the egg - by means of chemical sensing receptors.  It's still a theory by scientists, as far as I know, but if true, that ability sure gives the sperm a distinct capability, for one unique purpose.

And you might want to re-read my posts on this thread.  I never disagreed that cells are not "life."  I was not debating the science of this; I was asking questions.

Calm down man...not every theist is against everything an atheist might say.

You misunderstood my comment about being "cold" was not a shot against it being awe inspiring.  It was just an observation in how nature works and how it isn't going to ask for someone's feelings (wouldn't be nature if it did).  But that doesn't mean I am not impressed.  That really got me wondering why you considered what I said fallacious...but eh doesn't make any difference anyway.

Again, it is about how nature works.  We have emotions and to see something work without "feels" cold but that's only because of perception.  I just simply made the comment out of amazement.  I agree about how life is amazing and how each experience should be incredible.  Because I happen to also believe God had a hand in it doesn't take away from how I as a human being react to it.  As I was telling you before, I never intended any "atheist vs. theist" lines here.

btw...that recipe does sound good.

And I am not here to disagree with anything you just said in that block.  I don't know how else I can be clear in saying that while we might not agree on some specific topics...on this thread we are not at odds about what is "alive."

Keep in mind that this whole time I was trying to refer to human life although, as you told me before, that was not your concern.  But I do agree that cells no matter their purpose, are life.  If there was nothing more than that to all aspects of the question, including the political and philosophical, we were done a long time ago.  The only difference here is, I never looked at it as a continuum.  Not even as a Christian would I see a conflict in that position.

<derail>

1 lb penne + 1 can water-packed tuna (drained) + handful basil chiffonade + zest strips of one lemon = deliciousness.  Try it some time.

</derail>

"The little "Big Bang" is one of my many children."  a message from me ,  GAWED 

     father/mother, son/daughter .... the source , the infinite eternal AWE ! ....

nigelTheBold

Strictly along scientific lines, ok sure, but I thought were were discussing cells, not people.  Every cell has a function, i.e. purpose.  Sperm and eggs from humans (indeed any animal) each has a purpose as the means to reproduce.  If only one exists, then by itself it is nothing as its function/purpose cannot be achieved.  Again, this is what I meant by "nothing."

Life begins the day your kids get their own place and move out.

3.8 billion years ago

doomed soul, having worked with severly retarded individuals, who cannot feel pain, by that I mean they place their hand on a hot oven coil and show the same emotion as touching their lunch, do you feel they are human?

My 0.02c in short: Life doesn't begin or end, it just is. And the human existence is, basically, life transformed from one state into another.

Longer answer: Hamby earlier pointed out how a person between the ages of newborn and only a few years is not sentient by some varieties of measure which can be put to that term.

So on a narrow scale defining human sentient babies are not sentient. Doesn't that indicate that humans, by this narrow definition, are 'made' from babies? And if babies are psychologically a different creature to us, then what psychological structure does exist in a baby exists on the continuum of human sentience and extends beyond our definition. While we recognise the baby as biologically alive in a sense quite equal to a developed human while at the same time it is psychologically distant from human life as we know it, we are in part recognising that life becomes human and clearly was an equally significant something else along the way.

Hamby also referred to this in the sense of a continuum of stages which defines life as a whole precluding the notion of dividing it up to single out a beginning or end. And frankly, I agree. Life is a series of transformations into and out of a variety of vaguely distinguishable states, and there is no qualitative difference between a developing foetus and a developing human in terms of life, both are simultaneously living and dying constantly on a cellular level, though the rates differ. To wit, a foetus incorporates less death in its continuous state than a grown human does - is it, then, more alive? (rhetorical question)

Ultimately any definition of when life starts is bound and determined to be nonsense (with possibly the exception of Bodhi's comment) because life doesn't start at all, it is transformed. If we put the question to transformation and ask, at what stage, generally speaking, of transformation does life become human, by the example which Hamby brought up about newborn sentience we can see, the answer entirely depends on what we are defining to be human, by some definitions we can begin to exclude even large numbers of our existing population which are already considered by themselves and others to be people.

No, no i do not consider them human...

Then again, i havent considered myself as human for a long time, either...

Eloise. I bet I did see the film "Instinct", but I forget it's message.  Anthony Hopkins is an xlint actor. I will try to see it again. There are web sites that stream many complete movies no longer in the recent box office and for profit market. I will try to find the sites and that movie. I have some catching up to do .... Thanks kind Eloise, you rock. Be extra super nice to your self.

All, as us too, is gawed, whatever all that is !    

Thanks Hamby for all your xlint posts. Is is not "obvious" that we are the "force" or what I call "gawed", like many atheists of the east? Religion and the very discussion of, "yes gawed, no god", is proof that humanity in general is barely out of the "superstition age" .... Gawed? , whatever is, IS. Go science. My primitive Rum rants are an attempt to show that religion and it's god definitions are obviously silly and destructive, to all who can think.   I decided long ago to preach atheism by a road less traveled. This gets me in a bit of trouble but that was the plan, me god !  Hey, and any road of atheism is indeed a good road .... yet no perfect road I have yet found ! LOL    

Technically, life conforms to the following broad conditions:

Homeostasis -  That is, internal self regulation.

Organization - This is kind of obvious, as any replicator (another condition) will have to be organized as opposed to random, but in general, this is to say that there are unique components that are consistently organized.

Metabolism - consumption of energy through the conversion of nonliving material.  (Food consumed while alive dies before it is converted.)

Growth - there are several specific things that constitute growth.  It isn't just adding matter.  It must become larger in its parts as a result of metabolism.

Adaptation - this is the evolutionary definition of adaptation, that is, responding over time to the environment.

Response to stimuli - this is a shorter term response, as in moving towards or away from light.

Reproduction - just what it says.

I'm no computer guru, but I think the case for computer viruses being alive is more metaphorical than literal.  They do reproduce, respond to stimuli, and sometimes adapt through something akin to natural selection, and they are certainly organized, but I think the comparison breaks down when you try to ascribe metabolism or homeostasis.  Viruses don't have bodies to regulate so they can't do either.

Once again, I need to point out that there are two ways of discussing life.  If we are being scientific about it, life is a very specific thing, and there really isn't any wiggle room.  If something is life-like, that's fine, but you can't say it's alive.  Philosophers, on the other hand, can say anything they want, and they're perfectly free to make comparisons between memes and genes and binary replicators.  If the comparisons are philosophically useful, bully for them, but it doesn't add any scientific validity to the statement that something is living.

[EDIT: I guess I should mention that viruses are often cited as a gray area between life and non-life.  Virology is one of those subjects I've never gotten into, and I can't claim to know a lot about it.  However, viruses do contain DNA, RNA, or both.  They do mutate.  They are organized.  They do experience recombination.  I can't speak to the subtle differences that make viruses difficult to classify as living in the strictest sense of the word, but I know it's something that gets tossed around often.  Maybe that's what you were thinking of when you said the definition is not absolute.  If that's the case, I think (maybe DG can correct me if I'm wrong) that it would be more correct to say that viruses are a gray area, not the definition of life.]

Eloise wisely asks, "The only question left then is in what way is that 'something' a cohesive entity of significance to human existence? Is it nothing more than a static background in which the vectors of our temporal existence lay, or does it entail it's own dynamical system?" ~~~

     Interesting question and poet wording. LOL

This is over my head of course, but I will answer ... That "something", all of what is, in a 100% connected sense is simply "ONE". I think of this "cohesive" glue holding the seemly infinite "parts" together as the greatest mystery. I call this mystery gawed, the glue !

GAWED "glue" I don't believe is conscious, or self aware, or with self purpose. One of my favorite definitions of "g-o-d glue", is WTF.  G-O-D is all a science question for me. Religion is an xlint lesson in idol inventing, as you so know.

I hope you laugh alot, our cool Eloise ..., a "savior, a healer", a teacher, a student.

Very true, now that I'm thinking about it.  I suppose the focus for my friends was more on the idea that modern civilization isn't something magical or sacrosanct, but rather just an extension of what we were before we figured out fire and agriculture.  I suppose I basically glossed over the romantic appeal of the whole "life would be better if we lived simpler lives."  I don't think he ever came out and patently endorsed the noble savage idea or said that life would be perfect if we lived like that.  To me, he was basically saying, "Look, it doesn't have to be the way it is."

Then again, it's been several years, so I might be remembering wrong.  I can't say I remember much besides Takers and Leavers.  Actually, now that I remember that, you're right.  That is really skewed towards the noble savage.  (Instead of rewriting this, I'm letting you see my thought process in detail, as if you cared.)

In any case, I suppose that for people who really need a myth, Ishmael isn't the worst thing in the world for them to latch onto.  While the noble savage idea is distinctly wrong, I don't think it's as inherently harmful as theism.