Life - an Unequivicol Definition

Part 1Well, I can see some problems with your definition.Hypothetically, suppose we met a bunch of intelligent space aliens that could discuss poetry with us and play chess with us, but had a different basis for their biology, no DNA, no ATP. According to your definition, they're not alive. They're not as alive as a bacterium. They're as alive as a rock, i.e. not alive. They don't use ATP.But surely a definition of life should include them?By analogy, imagine an island where a bunch of white people live, and where all the animals are black. Now, these islanders might come up with a definition of human that says: "Humans are white, anything that's black is a mere animal". But their definition is parochial, it only works for their particular island in the particular time that they're inhabiting it.A definition of life has to include everything that we'd acknowledge as being alive if we saw it.--- Part 2You say that scientists equivocate over the definition of life. No they don't. A true statement would be: different scientists offer different definitions of life. None of these definitions are equivocal, they're just different. Now you've offered one more different definition. According to your idea of what makes scientist equivocal, you would just have made scientists more equivocal, if only you were a scientist.Let's try to think of an analogy ... let's say a Japanese person has a strong opinion on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in America. He proposes that gay marriage should be legal in America if and only if the people involved are over the age of forty. Here (he says) he has a clear and unequivocal rule, whereas Americans are so equivocal. Why do they equivocate so much?But no particular American is equivocating. Some of them say YES, some of them say NO, some say that they haven't made up their minds yet, but none of them equivocate. The Japanese guy gets to say that Americans have "equivocal" ideas because different Americans have different ideas, whereas this one Japanese guy has just one very clear idea. He's not equivocal, unlike all those equivocal Americans. And he condemns Americans for equivocating about gay marriage, whereas he has one simple unequivocal idea about gay marriage, which makes him less equivocal and more honest than all those dishonest equivocating Americans, who are collectively equivocating.But he would actually be adding to the American "equivocation" about gay marriage if he was American. In the same way, you would be adding to the "equivocation" of scientists about the definition of life if only you were a scientist.Well, it's easy to be "unequivocal" if you're just one person. Any group of people is going to be more equivocal. 'Cos of them being more than one person.You see why this Japanese guy would be stupid?

And yet those who said that would not be equivocating. As I said: "Some of them say YES, some of them say NO, some say that they haven't made up their minds yet, but none of them equivocate."

I think his point is that in that case mules aren't alive.

Again I would point out that not one single one of those definitions equivocates. Each is perfectly unequivocal and specific.

I understand it perfectly. But they are different scientists.Sheesh. "Some women oppose the fur trade. Other women wear fur. Therefore, women are hypocrites."They're different women.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No it doesn't.Some theists say that I should be a Christian. Some theists say that I should be a Muslim. I do not conclude that all or any one of them must be equivocating. I conclude that at least one of them must be wrong. But I don't go around saying "Well in that case they are all of them equivocating".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But do any of the people putting forward such definitions also propose that those words should be equivocal? If you personally can equivocate about the meaning of the word "reproduction", does it follow that someone who puts the word "reproduction" into his definition of life is himself equivocating?

So, AOk, did you respond to my first post on this thread?Can you even begin to think of an answer?

So, I've not really been following this, did AlphaOmegakid ever do anything about the massive flaws in his definition?