I do remember there is a scientific definition of life, which distinguishes it from other growing things, such as crystals, but it was something I read when I was nine years old and I can't really remember the details, beyond that it contained about 5 axioms or so.

It could not be a material difference, because if it was, then we could potentially be able to reverse that material difference back to its original configuration — Samuel Lacrampe

Why would our inability to restore a complex material state imply that it must not be material?

The recently dead cow has life. One can isolate a good cell and grow a new cow from it, just not restore the original cow by most definitions of what makes one cow not the same as another.

I am guessing that 'axioms' is synonymous to 'essential properties'? I would be very interested to know what these axioms are, if you ever find them again.

Why would our inability to restore a complex material state imply that it must not be material? — noAxioms

Let X = the body of the cow, and Y = the material thing that gives it life. Then a live cow is X+Y and a dead cow is X without Y. To resurrect the dead cow, we would just need to add the material thing Y back to X to result in X+Y. But this seems absurd. Therefore, Y is not a material thing.

The recently dead cow has life. One can isolate a good cell and grow a new cow from it, just not restore the original cow by most definitions of what makes one cow not the same as another. — noAxioms

It is indeed interesting if we are able to do that. What about restoring a live cell from a dead cell?

I believe ''life'', is sufficiently vague to scuttle any attempt to define it. We, some animals and plants are obviously alive but viruses and some other life forms are borderline cases. I guess this is expected of a gradual process such as evolution.

well that was 50 years ago, before the Internet, so I don't know how to find them. I would have thought the Wikipedia would state them.

I don't think there is a separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead one. That belief does not preclude that the difference in state is not strictly a material one.

I'm actually not sure of the extent that a cell has been 'built' from less obviously living parts. As MadFool points out, you run into the borderline of the definition of life.

It could be the case indeed that it is a gradual thing. For my knowledge, would you know what makes viruses a 'borderline case' in contrast to non-borderline cases?

I don't think there is a separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead one. That belief does not preclude that the difference in state is not strictly a material one. — noAxioms

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but as I see it, it does logically preclude a non-material thing:

• A difference exists between a live cow and a dead cow
• There is no separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead cow
• Therefore the existing difference is non-material

For my knowledge, would you know what makes viruses a 'borderline case' in contrast to non-borderline cases? — Samuel Lacrampe

As far as I know viruses are made up of DNA and a few proteins and lack the other cellular apparatus to be independent living things. So their MO is to hijack the cellular apparatus of other living cells.

A process isn't an ingredient; the function of a material existent is not an added essence, it's a mode of being. Whatever material change in organic material effects a change in function drastic enough to permanently preclude a recovery of that whole of which it's a part is the material difference that makes the difference in terms of life and death. And there need be nothing special about it.

biology, the study of living organisms, does not apparently have a clear definition of the concept of life. — Samuel Lacrampe

The concept refers to many things with different definitions. Hence the lack of one clear definition.

It used to refer to an assumed essence, élan vital, or spirit, that would fundamentally distinguish living things from dead things. But nowadays it is more often used for a set of capacities which arise from the mechanics of bio-chemistry and characterises organisms which can respond to the environment intentionally. Life can also refer to our given time, as in "My life", and as such include my experiences and effects on the world. Unlike the given time of dead things such as rocks my time is probably shorter, but unlike the rocks I can use them intentionally for constructing buildings or sculptures etc., tokens of life.

I see. And so the DNA, proteins, and other cellular apparatus are the properties that distinguish non-living things and living things (and then the degree of living things). I think carbon is another essential material property of all living things. Now what could be the essential difference between live things and dead things? Say a live virus and a dead one.

I think life is a state of matter. What differentiates it ?

Scientists suggest that all life must be able to reproduce, have a metabolism and it must have a form in which it is encapsulated. Fine, but so far the best of efforts have yet to produce life. Another effort, synthetic biologists are trying to put life together from existing parts.

Nether side has any definitive answers at this point, but they seem to be both making progress. In a contemporaneous thread, "How did living organisms come to be? Sophisticat posted a very good summary description of where things stand for those trying to build life from scratch.

The secret of how life on Earth began

I think they may be able to do it, but I don't think they will be able to explain their results objectively, using only a material/objective level of description. I think they will have to develop a subjective explanation (a subjective ontology) to explain the 'vital'/causal aspects of life. Life is a state of matter, but one whose explanation is not reducible to the level of objective ontology description without loss of its 'vital'/causality.

Yeah, I agree that life can be used in all these meanings in every day discussions. For the purpose of this discussion, I would leave out the third meaning "My life" and retain the first two meanings "spirit or soul" and the more scientific "set of capacities", and then figure out which one is closer to truth.

So the living state of an organism is the ability for its primary parts to function properly? Let's say a cell has died because one of its parts has a drastic change in function which is irreversible. Under the above definition, would it follow that the cell would come back to life if the deficient part were to be replaced by a properly working part, like replacing the deficient spark plugs on a car engine? If so, does it follow that there is no difference, with respect to living, between a cell and a car engine?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but as I see it, it does logically preclude a non-material thing:
A difference exists between a live cow and a dead cow
There is no separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead cow
Therefore the existing difference is non-material — Samuel Lacrampe

Similarly:
A difference exists between a flipped coin coming up heads vs. it coming up tails.
There is no separate material that distinguishes the coin in one state or the other.
Therefore the existing difference is non-material.
.
Do you mean to imply that the coin that lands heads-up has acquired an immaterial heads-up spirit or something? I rather think the difference is one of orientation, which is a difference in material state, but not a separate orientation-material that the tails-up state does not have.
Baden's post pretty much said as much.

Thanks for the step-by-step though.

"spirit or soul" and the more scientific "set of capacities", and then figure out which one is closer to truth. — Samuel Lacrampe

As far as I know the debate on vitalism had more or less dissolved by the 1930s, when there was genetics and a more refined understanding of bio-chemistry.

The synthesis of urea (and other organic substances) from inorganic compounds was counterevidence for the vitalist hypothesis that only organisms could make the components of living things. — Wikipedia

I now see the misunderstanding, in the word 'material'. I understand the word material to mean anything that is observable, or empirical. In that sense, I place matter, energy, arrangements and all the likes in the category of material. As I understand it, you meant only matter when you said "I don't think there is a separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead one."

Interesting. This would explain how a living cell is composed of non-living parts, and how it is created in the first place. Does it however explain the difference between a live cell and a dead cell?

Yes, there's no difference except the type of material and level of complexity. Cells are complex biological machines made of organic matter. Cars are simple non-biological machines made of inorganic matter.

I understand the word material to mean anything that is observable, or empirical. — Samuel Lacrampe

OK. There are empirical ways to determine the point of death of something complex like a cow. The definition has changed as technology has been able to resuscitate something that may have passed beyond older definitions of 'still alive'.
None of this really defines what life is. All the cells in a cow might be alive, but something else is still missing if there is no way to restore the cell collection as a functioning cow. There is life in the cells, but the cells do not comprise a life anymore.
An interesting thing to explore. What is the simplest creature that has a 'life', and is not just a colony of living cells? At what point does a zygote attain more of a life than what just a collection of cells have? These are hard questions.

Does it however explain the difference between a live cell and a dead cell? — Samuel Lacrampe

It explains that the difference between a living cell and a dead cell is not fundamental.

It makes no sense to classify swarms of atoms as dead or alive. Whether it makes sense to classify a chemical compound as organic or inorganic seems to depend on the context.

On a molecular level carbon atoms, or hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc., may interact in various ways depending on the circumstances. A change in the environment, for instance, could cause an imbalance in the polarity of the water molecule, which in turn might cause irreparable imbalance or damage on the possibility for other non-living components in the cell to interact with each other. When they cease to interact it makes sense to talk of a dead cell.

All the cells in a cow might be alive, but something else is still missing if there is no way to restore the cell collection as a functioning cow. There is life in the cells, but the cells do not comprise a life anymore. — noAxioms

I suppose some cells are primary for the life preservation of the organism, and some are secondary. If the secondary ones die, then the life is preserved by the primary cells, and these may even sometimes replace the secondary cells by new ones. But if the primary cells die, then the life cannot be preserved and the secondary cells will soon die thereafter.

One may think of a car engine as an analogy to the living cell. If the air supply, fuel supply or spark plugs malfunction, then the other systems which depend on this one can no longer function either, and the engine "dies". If the life of a simple cell is nothing more than the proper functioning of its parts, then the parallel with a car engine is valid.

At what point does a zygote attain more of a life than what just a collection of cells have? — noAxioms

This seems to be a good next step to the discussion. I suggest to add the concept of consciousness. If an organism does not an apparent consciousness, say a plant, then there is no reason to believe that the organism attains a life as a whole, as opposed to being a mere collection of living cells.

But if an organism has an apparent consciousness, say a dog, then the truth could be in one of two possibilities:
1. This consciousness is only apparent, and the dog is nothing more than a large system composed of living cells, like citizens in a state.
2. This consciousness is a real thing, and thus a "life" is added to the system. This new life is more than the life of simple living cells, which we have defined earlier as "the proper functioning of its parts".

Thoughts?

A "dead" car engine can be resurrected, not so for a dead organism it seems.

But if an organism has an apparent consciousness, say a dog, — Samuel Lacrampe

A dog is hardly a stretch. How about an oyster? It quite seems to have life as a whole and can be killed, yet has no apparent consciousness. A star fish on the other hand behaves more or less as a conscious thing, yet is questionably a living thing since it can be ripped to pieces and all the pieces become starfish. They have no critical parts, so they're more like plants that way.

Not sure how you're defining consciousness. I can be rendered unconscious, yet continue to live. So no, consciousness is not what defines me to be alive. You seem to suggest the word to mean a new fundamental ingredient of giving vitalism, which has been covered by the posts of others.

A "dead" car engine can be resurrected, not so for a dead organism it seems. — jkop

The engine could not be resurrected if it were a much more complex thing that, if stopped, fell apart more quickly that it could be repaired.

A "dead" car engine can be resurrected, not so for a dead organism it seems. — jkop

Actually, my point was the opposite; that just as a dead car can be resurrected by replacing the deficient part, so can the dead cell, by replacing its deficient part. This seems to logically follow from the definition that the life of a simple cell is nothing more than the proper functioning of its parts.

See the comment string here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/65014

Not sure how you're defining consciousness. I can be rendered unconscious, yet continue to live. So no, consciousness is not what defines me to be alive. — noAxioms

Consciousness has two separate meanings. One meaning is, as you point out, the difference between being conscious and unconscious, as in being awake or asleep. The second meaning is between a conscious being and a non-conscious being: the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. I was referring to the second meaning.

How about an oyster? It quite seems to have life as a whole and can be killed, yet has no apparent consciousness. — noAxioms

How is it that is seems to have a life as a whole, if it has no apparent consciousness? Having apparent consciousness was my reason to support having a life as a whole. What other reasons are there? Note: I am not here including humans just yet, only animals and lower life forms.