Alex Storer
Group: Emma Dannin, Elyse Myers, Genessa Giorgi, Madhu Prabaker, David Morris
Section: W 2-3
Cog Sci 101, Assignment 3
When considering the contested concept of life and by extension the contested
category living things, we must first analyze its uses in every day language. This
discussion should be prefaced, however, by noting that life itself is a very difficult
category to discuss. To begin with, a great deal of sentences in American English deal
with life in some sort of metaphorical sense. For example, you could tell your friend to
“get a life” without implying that they are no longer living. Or you could tell the same
friend that “you aren’t really living until you’ve found a purpose worth dying for,” which
does not imply that a person is literally dead. My goal is to keep the focus on the most
literal meanings of life, and briefly discuss how common phrases reflect the same ideas
that support these literal meanings. Additionally, this particular category is difficult
because science in general has a fairly rigid definition of what it means for something to
be alive. Most of the people with whom I discussed this were familiar with this
definition of life, although this almost certainly does not reflect the prevalent viewpoints
of speakers of American English. Also allow me to briefly note that all of my quotations
come from data linked from the Google search engine (www.google.com), and I will
forgo citing them.
Searching for the string “it’s not alive, it’s just” yielded several results, most of
which suggest some sort of criteria by which one could judge whether or not something is
alive. The most common criteria in this small set of data is motion, reflected by “it’s not
alive, it’s just muscle spasms”, “it may be moving but it’s not alive”, “it’s not moving, so
it’s not alive” and “maybe it’s not alive…but those little white specks do move an awful
lot like a living organism”. Each of these is used in a separate context, but all of them
reveal a close connection between life and movement. The common phrase “come to
life” often reflects literal motion, such as “the statue came to life and farted a message”
Another noteworthy phrase is “it’s not really alive, it’s just a clump of cells.”
This suggestion that a mere clump of cells does not confer life implies the necessity of
some sort of whole entity. For example, “living single-celled creatures can be studied
under a microscope” without any doubts of their livelihood, because each one is its own
being. This extends very clearly into another important criterion, some sort of biological
process which takes place. For example, “of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism
that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply,
and grow.” This definition, in which the speaker has complete faith, elucidates the
specific biological mechanism necessary for life in a scientific context. Viruses do not
meet this criterion, and are therefore not alive, as many biology textbooks will
confidently inform you. This biological imperative also fuels the earlier quote which
mentioned “moving along…like an organism”.
Another very important criterion for life is growth, which is evidenced in the
biological definition given in the above paragraph. Several of my group members
specifically mentioned this as an important factor for life, as well, citing that they do not
consider a seed to be alive until it has begun to grow. Many consider that a language can
be metaphorically alive or dead, and determining this relies heavily on the criterion of
growth. “Our language is what they call a ‘living language.’ Which means that it is
constantly growing.” Despite the poor grammar, the speaker has explicitly asserted the
importance of this particular criterion.
Consciousness also plays an important role in evaluating life, which stems from
our own human condition and the present scientific understanding that once someone dies
he or she is no longer conscious. If you walked into a room and saw a man sprawled out
on the floor unconscious, you might consider him dead. The phrase “he’s not dead, he’s
just sleeping”, which is very common online, would correct you or anyone else of the
overextension of this criterion to the living. Consciousness on its own suggests life, as
well, although in the present day it’s very difficult to dissociate consciousness and
movement, as conscious beings tend to move around. Consciousness is also bit hairy as
there is little in the way of science to explain it, and although treated as a Boolean, may
actually have a gradient of some sort. Either way, the speaker in most sentences is going
to make an assumption regarding whether or not something is conscious based on what
they have observed, and that guides his or her thought process rather than the truth.
Now that these criteria are established (motion, wholeness, biology, growth and
consciousness), we must ascertain their use and relative importance in determining the
presence of life. Clearly, when all are present we meet a very familiar being – a growing,
moving, conscious whole biological creature, like a puppy. Also noteworthy is that the
puppy can stop growing, stop moving and stop being conscious while still being just as
alive as it was previously, as in the case of sleep. If it were killed by destroying it’s
nature as a whole being, we would see that, first, dead puppies aren’t much fun, and
second, even if its pieces were writhing around and its cells we multiplying, it would not
be conscious or whole, and clearly not alive. Science fiction also raises many interesting
issues, specifically with respect to the biological component necessary for life in the
literal sense. Robots and genetically engineered cyborgs run rampant, and one is often
confronted with the question of whether one of these non-biological beings can be alive.
If a flower is alive, and it is cut in order to be sold, the question of whether or not
it is still alive is an interesting one. Most of the criteria which I have put forth do not
apply to plants, as motion and consciousness do not take place to an ascertainable degree.
Indeed, the criteria, while the same, are weighted differently for this particular flower
than for other forms of life. Now the remaining criteria are growth, wholeness and
biology. It still undergoes the biological processes that defined it to be alive earlier, but
this alone is not enough to define that flower as living. In this case, the flower is not
complete – it lacks its root structure, and may or may not be a real plant because of this.
Similarly, because it has lost its roots, it can no longer grow, which I believe to be the
primary measurement of life in botanical forms. It is the only perceptible form of change
and the most perceptible indication of life. Similarly, my group defined a seed to be alive
once it began to sprout, or indicate growth. This further emphasizes the importance of
growth, but again, implies the underlying biological process. A flower cannot grow
without being biologically feasible, so it is difficult to separate these two. Imitation
flowers, for example, which are not alive neither grow nor are biological entities.
In terms of determining whether or not something is alive, each example seems to
be compared to the prototype to a certain extent. If you identified something as an
animal, you would expect it to have share the same criteria which make animals alive,
and you would probably rank them in that order. As is determined from the puppy
example, the biological mechanisms at work and the wholeness of the being are both
crucial, while growing, moving and consciousness are most helpful when the first criteria
cannot be determined. A dark, dog-shaped mass lying on the ground in the forest for
example, could be watched for a period of time. You might declare it to be dead if you
do not see it moving despite the bugs crawling on it, but upon further inspection realize
that it is a full and complete tree, very much alive. These considerations must be taken
into account when trying to determine whether or not something is alive.
Let us now consider the situation with which we are the most familiar, that of
human beings. Here arises the central controversy surrounding life, considering
questions of abortion. Abortion relies on the PREGNANCY frame, and consists of
ending a pregnancy before it has come to term. The debate centers on “when life
begins”, or rather, when we can classify a fetus as a living creature. After this point,
many believe that abortion is tantamount to murder. This, however, is a different
question than whether something is life, as is discussed in many debates on abortion.
Pro-life literature tends to focus on the biological processes at work, and the shared
properties between unborn children and full fledged human beings. Arguments against
this often steer clear of the gritty details, but some focus on what is necessary for a
human life, and this is essentially the question at hand. As pregnancies progress, fetuses
acquire more and more characteristics of a living human being, including consciousness
and motion, and at some point in time become whole entities unto themselves. This is an
entirely different question, and the central point of the debate on abortion.
Life as a whole, however, is important to determine because being alive confers
certain rights and privileges in our society. Knowing the criteria which determine life
helps aid in understanding others’ points of view, and the arguments which take place.