next »

[issacweirdo]

...but since the universe is infinite...

Proof? I found this link very informative which I believe describes the universe elegantly. Also there's a segment from Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time. In summary: The universe is boundless, but not infinite.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

[Doctor Psi]

I believe that the physical plane itself is a single living thing, and we are all parts of it. I would make the comparison that a planet is to the universe what a single cell is to a human, but since the universe is infinite and humans are not, that doesn't really work.

Umm, the universe is quite finite. It is expanding though. Now, I don't think everything on the plane is alive, and I am not sure I believe there are planes like the ones described on this site, even if there are multiple universes. Though you got the right idea with the cells to humans though, except planets go to galaxies.

[meushiman]

I have a quick question that wouldn't really be enough for a thread, but is a little off topic.  If the universe is finite, then what is at the edge of the universe?  Like if I were to be directly on the edge (forget all about the expanding stuff), then what would I see in front of me?

[issacweirdo]

I have a quick question that wouldn't really be enough for a thread, but is a little off topic.  If the universe is finite, then what is at the edge of the universe?  Like if I were to be directly on the edge (forget all about the expanding stuff), then what would I see in front of me?

Yeah, that is a little bit off-topic. Why not make a new topic about it? That way we can concentrate more on the question instead of answering this OPs question, while mentioning brief ideas on your question. I'm interested too, since I have recently started thinking about this.

[meushiman]

Alright, carry on everbody

[MNBrant]

I believe that the physical plane itself is a single living thing, and we are all parts of it. I would make the comparison that a planet is to the universe what a single cell is to a human, but since the universe is infinite and humans are not, that doesn't really work.

They say unexplained mysteries forum that aliens operate as a kind of hive mind. Sounds very communal.

[Birth]

If life is defined as having energy, then of course planets are alive. But, then again, a dead body would be alive.
/end sarcasm

Planets do not have souls, therefore do not have life. Do they have energy? Sure. So do leylines. But theyre not alive. So do rivers. But they're not alive. Does my dryer have energy? Duh. But it isnt alive. What about a .223 round traveling downrange? If you think it doesnt have energy, step in front of it. But it sure as heck isnt alive. What about my video card? Sure. Energy. But noooo life.

Planets are not alive.

Please don't talk as if you're the omniscient being all look upon. It makes me judge you.

You have NO evidence as to if a river is alive or not. Neither do you about a bullet. Nor a video card. Your idea is not plausible and I'm judging it because you have no evidence or an at least a site to refer to as to if all of those things you said are alive or not. The only thing you've succeeded in doing is just telling me they aren't alive. And I can tell you blue elephants walk on their teeth during a Solar Eclipse. Neither of the two "facts" have evidence.

"Whats considered alive or not?" :Well let's be black and white.

Having a life force.

Of course this is entirely in my favor. But then that would mean everything is alive, until it's life force runs out on the physical plane. Of which I believe is an answer. Although it may not be a correct one.

[The Adfeng]

# a characteristic state or mode of living; "social life"; "city life"; "real life"
# the experience of being alive; the course of human events and activities; "he could no longer cope with the complexities of life"
# the course of existence of an individual; the actions and events that occur in living; "he hoped for a new life in Australia"; "he wanted to live his own life without interference from others"
# animation: the condition of living or the state of being alive; "while there's life there's hope"; "life depends on many chemical and physical processes"
# the period during which something is functional (as between birth and death); "the battery had a short life"; "he lived a long and happy life"
# the period between birth and the present time; "I have known him all his life"
# the period from the present until death; "he appointed himself emperor for life"
# a living person; "his heroism saved a life"

That is the definition for "Life" by many different sources noted by google.  Some things, such as planets, could be living, because the earth is technically functional.

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate

As you can see, there are many definitions for living and life and any other word.  It depends on how you interpret it.

[meushiman]

This is a bunch of useless squabble.  We all know what was meant when word "living" was used.  We know it means having life force.

A problem some people here have is getting caught up on grammar and other useless poop when we all know what was really meant.  I mean, aren't we supposed to be the people who go with their gut feelings because they are almost always right?  If your gut says that someone so meant this, they probably did.  If you say something when the person meant something else, so what?  You were wrong, you got corrected, and no one is really gonna judge you for it.

[issacweirdo]

If you guys are really looking for the actual definition of what is alive, and the most commonly used, look no further!
http://www.essortment.com/all/characteristics_rbrc.htm

The above ^ link is pretty good when it comes to explaining the characteristics of what all life has. Since the author of the topic never specifically defined as to what he considered as alive, I am going to use the scientific definition. Planets are then not alive by the biological definition. It's pretty darn specific too. Now, if you are using the term "life force", then that is not life since to my knowledge to have a life force is practically to have the ability to move on its own. The planet can still carry out BIG functions by itself without meeting the definition of life; therefore the planet meets the criteria as to what an example of "life force" is, since it can still move on its own, yet not be considered as life. I mean, if you really want you can play semantics and take a side on all the definitions of life, but I personally think there won't be much progress made. However, I am only representing the biological side as to what life is. I *kind of* talked about the spiritual meaning of what life is, AKA animate objects. It feels to me that at least the biological definition of life is set in stone and doesn't require refinement.

To meushiman:
You can read the beginning of my post to get the gist of what I'm saying. Anyways, here's a summary: according to the biological definition, if they don't fit the physical life criteria then it is not alive. End of story, does not require further argument. The planet must then be a non-living object. However, this is only from the biology perspective. It's also partially the OP's fault; they never really specified on what they defined as alive. Ergo, a lot of perspectives can come into play. Don't get me wrong; this is a psionics website, so in the psionic sense he most likely is referring to the term "life force". He said that he considers planets to be as much alive as we are, though it's not very clear if he was also well-educated to know the difference between the biological comparison of humans to planets. Also to what extent are human beings considered as "alive"? In other words, this is a REALLY good time for the OP to chip in the discussion...

[meushiman]

Alright, well if you consider the planet not to be living because it does not have those six characteristics, let us analyze that.
1.Does it have cells?  No, but is it hard to imagine a living thing without cells?  No, just look at viruses.  If you say they're not living, then compare it to other non living things.  Do those non living things have DNA and insert their DNA into cells (meaning they are capable of determining what a cell is and what is not because they don't insert DNA into rocks)?

2.Is the planet composed of small levels of arrangement and grouped together to make a more complex arrangement?  Yes, it is.  The earth is made of tons of different elements, molecules, etc. which can be grouped together to make the earth.

3.Does the earth use energy?  That's debatable.  Some people think the Earth uses a sort of radioactive center, but I won't dive into that.  Also, there is a cycle of energy in the weather and what not and a good amount of energy absorbed from the sun's radiation.

4.Does the earth maintain homeostasis? Yes, it has an atmosphere and magnetic field that make our planet very calm compared to other planets.

5.Does it grow and change in structure?  Yes, it's called weathering and erosion.  However, it does not grow in the terms we think of with animals and what not.  Yet, that isn't to say that the earth has reached an end to a growing period like an adult would

6.Does the earth reproduce?  I really don't know how to support the earth being alive on this one.

[yamitenshi]

just look at viruses.  If you say they're not living, then compare it to other non living things

Actually, this has been (correct me if I'm wrong) a topic of discussion among scientists for some time. A virus has DNA (or RNA), but that's about it. Besides that it has only a protein shell used to transport the nucleic acids and to inject them into a cell.
A virus does not have metabolism of any kind and does not reproduce (the infected cell does this for the virus). Also, it doesn't preserve homeostasis, but rather tends to disrupt that of an infected organism. So, can it really be considered a living being, an organism in the biological sense?

As for planets, they lack some characteristics too. A planet does not reproduce. A planet does not have perception in any way or form, or at least as far as we know. A planet does not maintain homeostasis. Just a few points.

Also, there are a few flaws in your reasoning. Earth is indeed very calm compared to other planets, but that's because of completely random things, such as distance to the sun, size, composition, etc. This does not mean that the planet maintains homeostasis, in fact the only reason why, for instance, the temperature is relatively constant is because of the sun's warmth. Organisms tend to be able to compensate for differences in temperature themselves.

Also, I think you misunderstand the meaning of growing. An adult, or even someone old enough to start shrinking in size, grows. It's the basic principle that the cells of which the body consists multiply. That's basically what's meant by growth. Shoot a large chunk of earth into space, and I can assure you it won't magically reappear.

Just my opinion.

[issacweirdo]

Alright, well if you consider the planet not to be living because it does not have those six characteristics, let us analyze that.
1.Does it have cells?  No, but is it hard to imagine a living thing without cells?  No, just look at viruses.  If you say they're not living, then compare it to other non living things.  Do those non living things have DNA and insert their DNA into cells (meaning they are capable of determining what a cell is and what is not because they don't insert DNA into rocks)?

2.Is the planet composed of small levels of arrangement and grouped together to make a more complex arrangement?  Yes, it is.  The earth is made of tons of different elements, molecules, etc. which can be grouped together to make the earth.

3.Does the earth use energy?  That's debatable.  Some people think the Earth uses a sort of radioactive center, but I won't dive into that.  Also, there is a cycle of energy in the weather and what not and a good amount of energy absorbed from the sun's radiation.

4.Does the earth maintain homeostasis? Yes, it has an atmosphere and magnetic field that make our planet very calm compared to other planets.

5.Does it grow and change in structure?  Yes, it's called weathering and erosion.  However, it does not grow in the terms we think of with animals and what not.  Yet, that isn't to say that the earth has reached an end to a growing period like an adult would

6.Does the earth reproduce?  I really don't know how to support the earth being alive on this one.

The Earth was originally a big mass of dust. That was the primitive form of the Earth. Earth can't reproduce either. It can't think; with what resources CAN it think? The homeostasis is also partially maintained by the life ON the planet. That's very different. Like yamitenshi said, the size, distance from stars, and the rotation also affect the planet's homeostasis condition. Before there was life on the planet everyone would have died easily. It was only with the formation of water and the creation of basic bacteria did Earth become hospitable for advanced life forms. The article also forgot to mention this one basic fact; ANY living thing requires water. The Earth does not require water; if you don't get this then research the beginning of the Earth. Then research why cells require water. Point being, arguing the Earth is a biological creature is stupid. Also the Earth doesn't use up energy; it didn't need to when it was in its baby stages. It only formed a VERY hot core due to gravity. It can still exist without the core though, however it would quickly heat up all over again.

In summary: The Earth is a big mass of crap. Life that is ON the Earth is different than the Earth itself. Please, don't play further semantics either; Earth is just a planet with lots of resources that can still exist without any life inhabiting the planet. That's the literal definition; scientists work with literal definitions. We consider Jupiter and Venus as planets, while we also consider Earth as a planet. We don't mention the term, "alive" in there. We just look if the planets can house life. If there is already life then the planet isn't alive, it's just that life is inhabiting the planet already.

About the viruses thing: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html
I personally only believe there is just one definition of life, and that is the biological definition; the characteristics of life. It must fit all characteristics in order to pass on as life. Viruses don't fit the definition of life, though I admit they are still a very weird case.
EDIT - Typo

[Birth]

"The Earth was originally a big mass of dust.  Earth can't reproduce either. It can't think. The homeostasis is also partially maintained by the life ON the planet. The Earth does not require water. Also the Earth doesn't use up energy.; it didn't need to when it was in its baby stages. It only formed a VERY hot core due to gravity."

The Earths life is perplexed.

Science has proved dogs have emotions a few years ago, kinda obvious in my opinion, and kind of weird to consider the fact that animals dont have emotions..
Science isn't sure is viruses are considered alive or not.

I love science, I'm a science freak, but I can't always agree on what it has to offer.
Scientifically, there are things we still don't know about the Earth. So I'm assuming all this is what science has to offer about Planets being alive.

Spiritually, I believe Earth is alive. But science doesn't believe in that; things being spiritually correct.
In the end, is there really a way to prove it is spiritually and scientifically?

[issacweirdo]

"The Earth was originally a big mass of dust.  Earth can't reproduce either. It can't think. The homeostasis is also partially maintained by the life ON the planet. The Earth does not require water. Also the Earth doesn't use up energy.; it didn't need to when it was in its baby stages. It only formed a VERY hot core due to gravity."

The Earths life is perplexed.

Science has proved dogs have emotions a few years ago, kinda obvious in my opinion, and kind of weird to consider the fact that animals dont have emotions..
Science isn't sure is viruses are considered alive or not.

I love science, I'm a science freak, but I can't always agree on what it has to offer.
Scientifically, there are things we still don't know about the Earth. So I'm assuming all this is what science has to offer about Planets being alive.

Spiritually, I believe Earth is alive. But science doesn't believe in that; things being spiritually correct.
In the end, is there really a way to prove it is spiritually and scientifically?

Dude, dogs and planets are completely different. Dogs have higher brain processes than some animals; it would be a given that they can feel pain, memorize it, and then respond to it in the future. Out of curiosity, how the hell did dogs come into the discussion?

[Birth]

You aren't looking in to the meaning of my words.

[issacweirdo]

You aren't looking in to the meaning of my words.

Can you specify?

[Birth]

"I love science, I'm a science freak, but I can't always agree on what it has to offer."

[meushiman]

Alright, to clear up any misconceptions, my previous comment was merely a way to defend the earth and not me showing my beliefs.  I really did need to list the evidence against the earth cuz you guys kinda did that.

To the topic of viruses: personally I believe they are alive because non living things, like I said, don't have any genetic makeup (DNA, RNA, etc.).  Also, other non living things are unable to move themselves.  Yes, there are sessile living things as well, but all non living things are sessile and all things that are motile are believed to be living (besides viruses).

[issacweirdo]

"I love science, I'm a science freak, but I can't always agree on what it has to offer."

Okay, I understand that.