What constitutes a life form?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
illuminatus
Student
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:44 pm

What constitutes a life form?

Post #1

Post by illuminatus »

life form
n.

The characteristic morphology of a mature organism.
Is a life form a living thing?
living thing

n : a living (or once living) entity [syn: animate thing]
The definition of life is the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

This is to say that plants are alive, animals are alive, anything that has some sort of organic function is a living thing. However, it is not a life form until it has fully matured. So a chicken egg is not a life form but rather an egg. A cacoon is not a butterfly but rather a cacoon. So anything not yet mature is not a life form but rather in a developmental stage of becoming one.

Now what does it mean to be an intelligent being? An intelligent being is nothing more than a life form that is sentient is it not? A sentient life form knows it exists and can therefore interact with the environment and now has the capability of aquiring knowledge.

So the real question is, why do we worry about things that are not life forms and certainly not an intelligent being so much?

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #2

Post by BeHereNow »

So the real question is, why do we worry about things that are not life forms and certainly not an intelligent being so much?
Many people worry about car, houses, all kinds of things that are not even living.

You seem to place living one notch below life form for some reason. Why can’t life forms and living things be horizontally related? On an equal plane. How does maturity imply more value? Some things are “past their prime” when they are mature.
You haven’t told me how we are to define mature. If we are talking about, oh, say. . .people, I do not consider a 15 year old to be mature. So should we place the same importance on 15 year olds who are only living and not yet life forms with the other living human specimens who are also not yet life forms? Zygotes and teenagers, are we just splitting hairs? Are they really of the same value when discussing the value of the human species at various stages?
At what age does a human, living, thing become a human life form?


Maybe life form is even of less value than living.

Post Reply