Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enmos, Jul 28, 2008.
Defend your position.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Enmo, look at the definition of alive.
Only the first one applies to organisms, and it's a very poor definition as well.
Explain how trees do not qualify.
Firstly, Merriam-Webster is hardly an authority Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Secondly, consider definition (1) on that link you gave. (The others refer to colloqial usages of the word 'alive', since the word has many meanings).
Following (1) we get to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
Now consider point (15).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which definition is it that you are relying upon? One of them is "having life" which trees certainly can have or "not inanimate" which living trees certainly are not.
The other definitions appear to be figurative uses based on that primary sense.
In any event, if Merriam-Webster *had* a definition of "alive" that categorically excluded trees, then clearly the problem would be with the definition, not with the trees.
It isnt a poor definition. The confusion comes from here:
1: having life : not dead or inanimate.
It is true but the main word here is actually inanimate.
A tree is closer to a snowflake than it is to a mountain lion.
Im guessing John99 is talking about whether trees are sentient or not. Trees are most definitely alive, but, they are not sentient life forms.
and since when did m-w become the standard dictionary everyone uses?
EDIT: i was wrong.
You are going in circles.
"Inanimate" means, according to your dictionary, "not endowed with life".
Do you anything more to offer than vague dictionary definition that don't even support your point ?
Before you looked up these definition, why did you think trees were not alive ?
That definition does not back up your assertion. dictionaries list all or many meanings of a word. This does not mean that something has to fit all meanings to fit the word.
No, he means there are not alive, as in trees do not qualify as life.
Perhaps since John seems to think it supports his argument.
I think of alive as being something with the capability to react or some form of immediate interaction.
No it isn't.
Trees do that... show me that trees do not interact with their environment.
Life and alive have separate meanings, that is why there are two words to describe them. Of course they qualify as something living.
Immediate reaction. You show me where a snowflake does not interact (react) with their environment. Is a snowflake alive?
Is a tree a living thing or not ?
Did anyone actually read my post?!
The dictionary quotation that John posted directly leads to:
I think that ends this discussion. As for our own personal definitions of words, I think that needs no argument.
That's the thread right there. Someones a little confused on definitions?
Are you saying you are completely ignorant ?
I told you to defend you position, come up with some evidence that supports your argument.
This is not Philosophy, this is Biology & Genetics.
Separate names with a comma.